US Gambling Law May Cause Flouting of IP Laws

Red Flayer writes "Slate Magazine reports that the US's recent actions to clarify restrictions of on-line gambling may have some very important unintended consequences. Antigua has challenged the legitimacy of the US's partial restrictions under the WTO, claiming that the laws represent a free trade infringement. What is so significant about this is that Antigua would be fully justified (and I imagine, would get a lot of support from other nations) in ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws. Freetrade.org has a more in-depth analysis (albeit with a predetermined opinion on the topic). Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista."

Comments

Huh?

[forrestf]

I wonder why there are making such a fuss about this

Re:Huh?

[h8macs]

They want less of the money leaving the country and more being spent here in the country. I think it has less to do with protecting "the public" and more about protecting particular interests in the states.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because:
*Both the US and Antigua are WTO members
*The US has refused to obey the WTO decisions on internet gambling
*Under WTO rules, Antigua has the right to a remedy
*Since it's unlikely that Antigua can directly extract a remedy from the US, it can extract it in other ways, such as selling US IP for its own profit.

Re:Huh?

[diersing]

Under WTO rules, Antigua has the right to a remedy

I think the US might have it's own remedy. A free, all expenses paid trip to Vegas (VEGAS BABY!!). Our man, uh.. Vito will be there to pick up and give you a free ride... um, the rest is a surprise.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC to protect my identity, but the funny part is that I work in the gaming industry, and one of our biggest casino clients really does have a guy name Vito that they use to "talk" to people. The only difference is he's a very expensive lobbyist in DC, NOT the other kind of "Vito".

Re:Huh?

[Feyr]

the us is part of the WTO, but only obeys it when it suits them. that's nothing new and good luck doing anything about it

Re:Huh?

[kfg]

I wonder why there are making such a fuss about this

The Feds did not ban Internet gambling. They banned certain wire transfers of money.

Follow the money.

KFG

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, And canada wasn't dumping government subsidised lumber in the US forcing mills to close shop in the 90's. China (or japan) wasn't dumping metals below market price in the market in the 80's and 90's causing steel mills to close either.

Nope, nobody but the US ever does stuff like that. Who would have though a country would have the nerve to artificialy inflate crop prices by not growing or producing in certain areas or just inflate the prices so the farmers could make thier mortgage and equiptment payments. I mean the nerve of the US producing all that food for export and trying to make sure thier farmers could keep thier land to continue feeding the world. I remeber being outraged when they tried to pay me not to raise pigs and I had made more money not raising pigs then my neighbor who did. Of course that only lasted a short time. But we both kept our homes and land.

I'm wondering why anyone would buy food from the US with all the bad stuff it does. I mean they should just refuse to buy this "economicly tainted food" and buy from all the other countries not doing this stuff.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that Vito Cecchi?

Re:Huh?

[mabhatter654]

they should back the Pirate Party!!!! After all, the US govt has no right stepping on the swedes if they turn around and illegally restrict another nation's trade.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yea, And canada wasn't dumping government subsidised lumber in the US forcing mills to close shop in the 90's.

No it f'n wasn't and WTO agreed. So STFU. Imagine that, a country with a lot of trees couldn't possibly have a natural advantage. Na, they must be dumping. Nevermind the 75 cent dollar exchange advantage for the US for most of that time.

And you're surprised why the world despises the US? All high and mighty on ideals then breaks them when convenient. If you can't affort to lose on any one industry, DON'T sign free-trade deals!

> I'm wondering why anyone would buy food from the US with all the bad stuff it does.

The same reasons people still eat at McDonalds. It's cheap. Most people don't ask too many questions about the things they buy. And the ones that do find everthing else is made in China.

Re:Huh?

[bobKali]

Ya know, I've never quite understood why people get into such a snit about other countries subsidizing their industries. I know it's not "fair" to their US competitors, but the net effect is the same as if those governments were handing out money to US consumers who buy their products. That's money being transfered from their economy to ours and it provides additional pressure on our industries to streamline their operations in order to compete, pressure that's not brought to bear on our foreign competitors because of their government subsidies. So where am I worng?

Antiguasoft Vista

[MooseTick]

Great idea, unless you were expecting to run this somewhere that did still respect US copyright laws and agreements.

Re:Antiguasoft Vista

[whoever57]

Great idea, unless you were expecting to run this somewhere that did still respect US copyright laws and agreements.

Actually, I think it is not so simple. US copyright law allows you, as the owner of a legally made copy to run the s/w. Since the copy would legally made in Antigua, surely, one would have the right to use it under copyright law.

Patents might be different, since patent law forbids the importation of products that violate US patents.

Re:Antiguasoft Vista

[NewWorldDan]

Nope, still a violation of copyright law. The US would still regard it as counterfit anywhere outside of Antigua and importation would still be illegal. Making it outside of the US is still a violation of US copyright law. On the other hand, it would be terribly difficult to police. The Antiguans would be free to set up a web site where anyone could download the latest from hollywood without fear of being shutdown. (just a fear of running out of bandwidth). Think of it as sailing out to international waters to retransmit Major League Baseball. You could be sued and or prosecuted as soon as you set foot back in the US again (or sooner if you have assets in any US jurisdiction). In short, the Antiguans could enjoy a lot of free movies and music, but that would mean very little to the rest of the world. PS, IANAL.

Re:Antiguasoft Vista

[ratboy666]

Not quite.

Yes, the US *could* either try (1) to make imports from Antigua illegal, or (2) to try to impose tariffs on such goods.

In any case, Antigua can still sell to other countries. Also, the law or the tariff can come under judgement from the WTO again -- and, again, the US would lose.

And continue to ignore the WTO (Canada and the softwood lumber dispute -- its happened before)

Yes, the WTO may be seen as "toothless" by the US, but understand that Europe and China could simply aquire Microsoft/Disney/... goods through Antigua. These companies would be hurthing bad... and the hurting will be put back into policy. Soften up on the gambling; that's Antigua's livelyhood. Or, eliminate on-line gambling. Take your pick, US, you can't have both.

Ratboy

Re:Antiguasoft Vista

[aussie_a]

Why wouldn't all members of the WTO revoke America's copyright and patents?

Re:Antiguasoft Vista

[MooseTick]

Are you saying that if Antigua or another country allowed the production of "Antiguasoft Vista", the US's only recourse would be "(1) to make imports from Antigua illegal, or (2) to try to impose tariffs on such goods" ?

While the US couldn't stop the production and use of those products IN Antigua, they definately can and would consider the import and use of such products as violations of copyright law. And yes, they could still sell to other countries but again, most countries with organized governments would also not allow such imports.

If that was all it took to legally pirate good, don't you think some shaky Caribbean, African, or Asian government would disregard IP laws and repackage software, music, and movies and sell them to the rest of the world?

Re:Antiguasoft Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was all it took to legally pirate good, don't you think some shaky Caribbean, African, or Asian government would disregard IP laws and repackage software, music, and movies and sell them to the rest of the world?

As long as they had a WTO ruling behind them, yes. Copyright law is a U.S. law. Other countries adhere to it due to treaties. If countries don't, the U.S. goes to the WTO and sanctions/tariffs/etc are usually imposed. Other countries don't buy these good because they violate their country's laws.

The FA states that if the WTO finds in Antigua's favor, Antigua will 1) be able to sell these goods as they see fit and 2) any other country will be able to buy them without invalidating their laws. This would *INCLUDE* people in the U.S. which is why the U.S would make imports from Antigua illegal quickly.

Captcha - grinds

and torturing people violates international law...

[Anonymous Coward]

.... but do you think the US gives a fuck about that either?

Well sure

[$RANDOMLUSER]

The U.S. banning Internet gambling is a violation of free trade agreements, but we're doing it for all the "right" reasons.

Re:Well sure

[jedidiah]

It's also consistent with our status as an independent nation-state.

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US. However, it is still an abuse of our right to run our affiars amongst ourselves the way we see fit. Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

Re:Well sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it was cutting into state Lottery and Indian gaming revenues... it's not that our congresscritters have an moral objection to gambling addicts pissing away all their money, it IS that our congresscritters have an objection to all the profits off of gambling addicts going overseas, where they don't result in Jack Abramoff-style "contributions"!

Re:Well sure

[Daniel_Staal]

But the problem is that the US hasn't banned internet gambling. It has only banned some internet gambling, including all internet gambling outside the USA. If all internet gambling were banned, the US could cry 'moral grounds' and the problem would go away. But since they aren't, and instead only allow US-based internet gambling...

Re:Well sure

[compm375]

Is online gambling really that different from regular gambling? The U.S. did not ban regular gambling, so it is effectively banning something that is allowed domestically.

Re:Well sure

[91degrees]

Well? They are. There is genuine desire from the US to protect its citizens.

Of course, for much the same reasons, a lot of countries wish to violate US patents on drugs.

Perhaps these treaties shuld be renogtiated so that they take into account all factors affecting quality of life in the world rather than just financial interests.

Re:Well sure

[drinkypoo]

Also, keep in mind that Nevada just approved mobile gaming, which means on your cellphone. Arguing that internet gambling and gambling in a casino are different is a legitimate argument. Arguing that mobile gambling and internet gambling (normally we'd call all this "Gaming" but I realize that this is slashdot so I'm altering my terminology) are substantially different is laughable to say the least.

Re:Well sure

[bladesjester]

Online gambling is, in fact very different. Gambling at casinos is very tightly regulated by the government. Casinos are by no means free to do what they like unlike most businesses.

Though, that said, I have to say that I personally think the real reason the government now forbids online gambling is because they don't get the tax revenue from it.

Re:Well sure

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Gambling at casinos is very tightly regulated by the government.

This is true for native reservation casinos, but I'm not sure it applies to casinos within regular land. Vegas, for example, answers mostly to the Nevada gaming commission, not the feds.

Though, that said, I have to say that I personally think the real reason the government now forbids online gambling is because they don't get the tax revenue from it.

I don't think you understand how our government works. It doesn't act in the best interests of the government, per se, but in the best interests of the individuals running it. The government is happy to give away billions in subsidies if it means they get a few hundred grand donated to the party campaign fund.

If you've been following the news maybe you've heard about the recent lobbying scandal where a lobbyist who works for many different groups including a consortium of casinos was busted for bribing members of congress. Hmmm, what could those casinos be bribing members of congress to do? What is it they might want? Maybe outlawing the competition?

Re:Well sure

[Daniel_Staal]

The fact that the USA allows casinos is irrelevent. Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded. So, the US allows internet gambling right now. You just have to base it in the USA. That's a clear violation of trade treaties.

They are not arguing that internet gambling and casino gambling are the same thing. No need: the USA has legal internet gambling sites that they are protecting, in direct violation of trade treaties that the USA has signed.

Re:Well sure

[demeteloaf]

That's what the issue is... according to TFA, that's the argument the US is trying to use: "We have a right to protect the morality of our citizens."

What Antigua is saying, however, is that online gambling is NOT restricted in the US (i.e. betting on horse races, state lotteries, etc. are all legal) and that to ban online gambling by foreign countries while still allowing local companies the right to let people bet online is an unfair restriction of trade. I tend to agree with Antigua, and the WTO has as well.

Re:Well sure

[king-manic]

It's also consistent with our status as an independent nation-state.

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US. However, it is still an abuse of our right to run our affiars amongst ourselves the way we see fit. Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

The US already uses the WTO to blugeon other nations. They tend to ignore any incovenient rulings against them though. But they freely use it to threaaten others. See the soft wood lumber deal with canada.

Re:Well sure

[drinkypoo]

Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded. So, the US allows internet gambling right now. You just have to base it in the USA. That's a clear violation of trade treaties.

I realize what you're saying. I'm quite aware of what the US allows in the way of gaming - I work in a Tribal casino in northern California. The US might allow internet gambling, but no state allows it.

They are not arguing that internet gambling and casino gambling are the same thing. No need: the USA has legal internet gambling sites that they are protecting, in direct violation of trade treaties that the USA has signed.

Show me one.

No state permits internet gaming, not even Nevada, which as I previously stated only just started to allow mobile gaming.

Re:Well sure

[ray-auch]

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.


Indeed it isn't - nor would it be a WTO violation. The problem, as I understand the WTO argument, is that the US _does_ allow online gambling but only for US companies. That breaks WTO rules just like if the US banned the sale of non-US oranges - the US is still free to ban the sale of oranges altogether.

Note also that WTO doesn't affect sovereignty - it's a mutual agreement thing, and it doesn't have any enforcement as such. The US is actually free to break WTO rules, however if it does then the vicitms are entitled to charge the US back with levys etc. (withing the rules). The US could then retaliate further if it wanted - but things tend to stop at that point because global trade war is not in any of the WTO players' interest, so they work it out.

The interesting thing here is that Antigua is so small it can't recover its damages from the US in the usual fashion, so it is asking for the novel relief of being granted the right to copy US-produced IP without paying the usual royalties. Since global enforcement of copyright relies on similar mutual agreement to WTO (might even come under WTO?), this might even work.

Re:Well sure

[ctr2sprt]

Is online gambling really that different from regular gambling?

Yes, because an online casino may be in another country, where we have zero legal authority to regulate it. If it's domestic, then states, towns, counties, or the entire country can decide whether to allow gambling. (People can always travel to a casino, but the less convenient such travel is, the less likely people are to do it.) We can also do things like impose regulations to prohibit casino-side cheating and so on.

Now in reality, a ban on Internet gambling at foreign casinos is going to be useless (worse than useless, if it gets us in trouble with the WTO). We don't have a Great Firewall, and even if we did, we all know how ineffective China's is. And besides, making gambling inconvenient isn't going to affect people with gambling addiction - they'll go wherever they need to in order to get their fix - it'll just affect casual gamblers looking to have a night of fun. So even if this ban worked exactly as intended, I don't think it'd serve the great social good its proponents think it will.

But still, there is a valid and important distinction between the two types.

Re:Well sure

[MLease]

So even if this ban worked exactly as intended, I don't think it'd serve the great social good its proponents think it will.

I think this ban was more of a pander to the Christian Right than any effort to serve a "great social good".

-Mike

Re:Well sure

[sumdumass]

It isn't exactly that cut and dry. But I like the inuendos leading to coruption. I added just enough mysterious flaver to start a conspiracy.

But only the truley foolish will follow the conspiracy. You see, It is illegal to rig gambling in the houses faover on a federal level. State gaming commisions are chartered to support or enforce his idea. They operate with federal autority even though they are a state organizations. The nevada gaming commishion can call the FBI into play at any time and even access other federal resources wihout all the delays of paperwork or certain thing s happening to triger the ability for a federal agency to get involved.

Now, How do we regulate the inline gambling and determin if the slots are paying out anything at all? In the real world, there are agents who check the machines. Sometimes they show up unanounced and take them to be analized elswhere. On the internet? You not even sure you are playing with real people or that there isn't a ringer sitting in that will win 80% of the big pots and 40% of the smaller pots. This would know the cards being delt or the code that allows it to deal.

My friend plays(ed) online poker all the time. He always finished tournaments in the top 10. Played some for money several times and didnt' make it past the 6th or 7th round (over 100 others did). Now does this mean the tables are stacked and they just wanted his money? Or is it simply that better people play with real money then the ones using free credits on the tournement. The problem is that we have no way of knowing for sure. In real life, You can see everything going on and analyze it later. On the internet, you see what your supposed to see and that it.

So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards.

Re:Well sure

[Hoi Polloi]

"It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically."

They banned gambling in the US? Oh, only gambling OVERSEAS. I think that is the issue.

Re:Well sure

[Mr2001]

It's also consistent with our status as an independent nation-state.

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US.

Er, we gave up that little bit of "sovereignty" when we joined the WTO. Treaties are the law of the land, according to the Constitution. The WTO isn't being used to abuse us; the whole point of treaties is that we give up something in exchange for getting something from the other signatories.

Re:Well sure

[tweek]

THANK YOU!

This is another stupid attempt by congress to control people's lives. I don't understand how someone gambling online affects my life or my liberty.

I base my interpretation of life on pretty much one quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

What the hell do I care if someone gambles online? Sure there's the whole "greater good" argument but I never liked that one ;) I don't care if someone is gay, smokes pot or pays for sex either.

Re:Well sure

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Well? They are. There is genuine desire from the US to protect its citizens.

Protect its citizens from WHAT, specifically?

Re:Well sure

[tweek]

I think you just shot down your own argument at the very end:

"So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards."

buyer beware. The government cannot and SHOULD not try to protect people from stupidity. People are stupid. I'm stupid and you're stupid. We do stupid shit everyday. The whole point of internet gambling is this:

1) The Religious right don't like it so no one else should be able to do it.
2) They can't TAX it so they don't like it.
3) Jack Abramof (probably misspelled his name)

Not to hijack, but reason 2 is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of a national retail sales tax. Let the stupid fuckers risk everything gambling online. If they DO happen to win, they'll end up buying some big expensive shit and paying taxes on it.

Re:Well sure

[Millenniumman]

No, it was pandering to the brick and mortar casinos. It was helped along by the religious factor, and the nanny state supporters.

Re:Well sure

[Tet]

Show me one. No state permits internet gaming, not even Nevada

Sure they do. To the best of my knowledge, every single US state permits online gambling. Residents of any state can quite legally go to an online broker and gamble on commodities or forex futures.

Re:Well sure

[noamsml]

Last I checked, Antigua has a full right to disrespect US Intellectual Property laws, being a sovereign nation and all.

Re:Well sure

[mabhatter654]

the best example is the Pirate Bay in Sweden!!!! The Swedish laws allow the Pirate Bay, but only barely. The US went to their country and beat their govt over the head with the WTO agreement for something the Swedes found "morally allowable"... that's a fair and equal comparison to what the An-who-gians are claiming.

Re:Well sure

[ceoyoyo]

And Antigua is saying that ignoring US patents and trademarks is consistent with their status as an independent nation-state.

You guys can be sovereign all you want, but if you want someone else to do something for YOU, you're going to have to do something for THEM.

Re:Well sure

[glarbl_blarbl]

No, it was pandering to the brick and mortar casinos. It was helped along by the religious factor, and the nanny state supporters.

This sounds like the most plausible explanation to me. What I want to know is: who the hell are these nanny-state supporters we keep hearing about?! The Liberals blame the Conservatives, and vice versa. I know I don't support those assholes, and I tell my representatives in congress all the time.

I personally think they are a straw-man created by people like Richard Nixon and Wm Randolph Hearst who have ulterior motives (re-election and profit respectively). Unfortunately, once the straw man makes it into law it's nearly impossible to fix the damage via politcal means- everybody knows it's political suicide in the US to call for an end to Cannabis Prohibition, after all. Good luck getting rid of this POS law, regardless of how bad the "unintended consequences" get.

Re:Well sure

[Courageous]

It's ironic on many levels. The Feds do have under the constitution the right to ban international gaming, but don't actually have the right to ban it in the States.

C//

Re:Well sure

[terrymr]

The "lefties" banned online gambling in washington state ... but then the gambliing commission seems to be a bunch of micromanaging wack jobs here ... for example we're legally required to call the police before holding a raffle for a non-profit org.

Re:Well sure

[terrymr]

Washington state expressly permits interstate/intrastate online betting on horse races. All other online gambling is a class C felony ... the same as possession of child porn.

Re:Well sure

[terrymr]

Correct, the USA explicitly committed to allow cross-border trade in gambling services when it ratified GATS. They did not request an exemption from those provisions.

Re:Well sure

[gd2shoe]

But the problem is that the US hasn't banned internet gambling.

Yes they have, unless there is an exception that I don't know about.
(they haven't banned gambling in person, though many states have).

Re:Well sure

[bnenning]

Or is it simply that better people play with real money then the ones using free credits on the tournement.

Of course. Nobody takes free money games seriously. Anybody who tries to play vaguely correctly can "win" easily.

The problem is that we have no way of knowing for sure. In real life, You can see everything going on and analyze it later. On the internet, you see what your supposed to see and that it.

In some ways the opposite is true. If you play poker online, you can save every hand you're dealt into a database and analyze them however you want. Any cheating by the casino will eventually show up as statistical anomolies outisde the bounds of random chance.

Re:Well sure

[iogan]

The US already uses the WTO to blugeon other nations. They tend to ignore any incovenient rulings against them though. But they freely use it to threaaten others. See the soft wood lumber deal with canada.

And the shutting down of the pirate bay. And countless others.

Re:Well sure

[aussie_a]

America also wasn't forced to give authority over itself to the WTO. So yes, unless America wants to revoke the treaties it has made giving authority to the WTO, people will attempt to use the WTO to police America. Amazing how that works.

Re:Well sure

[91degrees]

Themselves, I think.

Re:Well sure

[Spunkee]

Until they get WMD

Re:Well sure

[RubberBaron]

Here you go: Youbet.com

Re:Well sure

[Millenniumman]

who the hell are these nanny-state supporters we keep hearing about?!

Most people, sadly. It's a very easy platform to run on: "We give you everything you need, and protect you from teh evils".

Re:Well sure

[sumdumass]

In some ways the opposite is true. If you play poker online, you can save every hand you're dealt into a database and analyze them however you want. Any cheating by the casino will eventually show up as statistical anomolies outisde the bounds of random chance.

Thats if your even seeing the same things the other players "you think" are at the table are seeing. But online pocker isn't the only online casino game. Blckjack, slots, roulete, all can be "cheated" at by either the house or the playes.

I was thinking of a way to place three or four people at the same online poker table in voice comunications (cell phones) and we would each tell eachother what our hands were. The idea was to know it couldn't be possible to ge that straight flush or fourth Ace when the cards needed are in my hand. Now how could you stop that from happening? Obviously at a casino in vegas or indian land, they would stop you from telling others what your hand was. But what if the house has placed a guy at the table (a robot) who knows what your holding, what you will draw and his mission is to only let you win a faction of the money back in small pots more then a smaller fraction in larger pots. In the end of the day, the house bot has came out above everyone else. How could you know by statistics on a gameof chance if something like hat was happening? Now what if this bot was at three different tables at the same time and it's job was to harvest 70% of the funds that came to those tables meaning he only needed to randomly pull 70% of the fund from one table but spread it out over three different one. Now your database Idea is lost (unless you know the outome of the exact three tables the bot is playing at.

There is two almost untracable ways to increase the odds by cheating that would be caught in a real casino. I can think of a couple more too, like how about a bot hat watches your cards and tells you the probability of taking the hand and only going in large when you have over 80% chance of success. Now this would be different if you knew it on your own but using something to tell you would be cheating.

Re:Well sure

[SonicSpike]

It's real simple. Trace the money trail of the Congress people who introduced and voted this. You will find that their finances came from Indian Casinos, and other more traditional 'brick-and-mortar' casinos.

It has NOTHING to do with morality - everything to do with buying legislation.

And this is why we need to keep our government small and limited. A small and limited government wouldn't have the ability to legislate/regulate in favor of any corporate interest.

From what I understand,

[IconBasedIdea]

If it takes a trade issue to bring down the anti-gaming laws, so be it. http://www.antiguawto.com/

Re:From what I understand,

[istartedi]

Conversely, if it takes a gambling issue to end "Free Trade", so be it. Any real economist will tell you TANSTAAFL. If people would quit worshiping at the altar of Free Trade, we might actually collect sufficient fees at ports of entry to inspect more than 2 percent of all the cargo that comes in to this country. And no, I'm not talking about terrorists either. Anybody ever add up the economic impact of Chestnut blight, fruit flies, zebra mussels and all the other trade-borne pests? These things never appear on the balance sheet of any Free Trade advocate. We can ammortize that cost slowly, with just enough tarrif to fund a worthwhile inspection and regulation of import/export, or we can shift that cost away from the import/export companies towards the general population, and pay the unpredictable costs of ecological disasters. I prefer the former, but nobody cares, and nobody will listen.

Money laundering and Terrorism?

[Overzeetop]

FTFA if piracy is indeed a breeding ground for money laundering and terrorist operations...

Huh, I wasn't aware that piracy was actually used as a legitimate front for laundering money - and since it isn't a legitimate business, why not just nab the money launderers on IP infringement charges? I'm also suprised that terrorists are the ones making money by selling infringing media to support their attacks on the western world - it seems that most of the cash in piracy is the simple loss of revenue through supression of sales of new material.

Sounds like a full helping of FUD.

Re:Money laundering and Terrorism?

[Red Flayer]

Hey, how about putting that quote in its context?
FTA:

Two drawbacks of retaliating through intellectual property rights may give pause to Antigua and Barbuda. First, if piracy is indeed a breeding ground for money laundering and terrorist operations, then encouraging the development of a safe haven for intellectual property rights violators may not be in Antigua and Barbuda's interests. Second, Antigua and Barbuda may decide that suspending its obligation to protect the intellectual property rights of American companies is not in its trading interests.

Maybe you misunderstand -- the US can't nab the launderers on IP charges if they are in Antigua, short of invading.

it seems that most of the cash in piracy is the simple loss of revenue through supression of sales of new material.

No, most of the cash in piracy is from selling bootlegged material. What you are describing is potential losses by the IP holders.

Re:Money laundering and Terrorism?

[Falladir]

Don't be so quick to jump on him for misunderstanding piracy. If you haven't been outside of America, it's easy to imagine that nobody is making money from piracy. Most Americans are unaware that in many countries there are mainstream stores that stock bootleg dvds and cds. This is a profitable enterprise and if US IP laws were respected in those countries, IP holders would go after these profits.

Re:Money laundering and Terrorism?

[Sr. Zezinho]

> Maybe you misunderstand -- the US can't nab the launderers on IP charges if they are in Antigua, short of invading.

A coup d'état is cheaper. And no, I will not mention Thailand.

Re:Money laundering and Terrorism?

[Overzeetop]

Although I have not strolled the markets abroad where bootlegs are more plenitful than water, I still have a hard time believing that Terrorists are using this as a significant cashflow mechanism. Mafia, yes, terrorists, no. I think there are higher margins to be had further up the illgeal lists (drug and weapons traffiking, for example), and state sponsorship.

Re:Money laundering and Terrorism?

[Falladir]

I only meant to say that there is money in piracy, not that terrorists are the ones profiting.

the right?

[Lord Ender]

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling? And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

The same can be said of prostitution and many other illegal things.

Really, our government should be protecting our rights, however trivial, unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

Re:the right?

[Daravon]

Like cigarettes? *ducks*

Re:the right?

[Dunbal]

And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

      "A lottery is but a tax on fools" - Unknown.

Re:the right?

[AJWM]

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling?

Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause. (Congress is constitutionally authorized to regulate interstate commerce, so they throw some fiction about same into almost every bill they think might be a little dodgy. Works, too, except where they're trying to do something explicitly forbidden to them by the constitution.)

Re:the right?

[pixelpusher220]

doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

No no...we have the ponies for that ;-)

Re:the right?

[Red Flayer]

And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

Well, that's exactly the point of Antigua's claim. The US allows some gambling -- they even allow some online gambling; therefore, banning all offshore gambling amounts to unfair trade restrictions.

As to Constitutional right, since when has that mattered?

Re:the right?

[jcarkeys]

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling? And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Actually, they kind've do. I think there's an easier case to make that online gambling is interstate/foreign commerce than it would be to use the interstate commerce clause to strike down segregation --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Mo tel_v._United_States.

Re:the right?

[whoever57]

Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause.

When the Supremes allows Congress to make regulations affecting food grown by a farmer on his own land and eaten in his own house, they gutted the limitations on the federal government's power. Look also at the recent decision about CA's medicinal marijuana law -- essentially what they said was that the Feds could control it because they have a legitimate interest in so doing -- do they understand the concept of a circular argument?

Re:the right?

[TheDukePatio]

The US Government didn't outlaw gambling. They outlawed the method of monetary transfer to gaming sites. While it's a very fine difference, it is a difference nonetheless. They couldn't outlaw gambling because it's a state decided issue (i.e. Nevada & Jersey). The law's intended consequence was to *effectively* ban on-line gambling because US citizens have no way to get funds to/from those sites. They knew they couldn't outlaw gambling so they took away the foundation, the money.

One of the main problems with the way US laws are passed is the ability to slip things like this in to a larger bill that noone would dare vote 'no' on since it would be political suicide and very few politicians have the balls to stand up on issues like this.

Sen. Jones: "Don't re-elect Sen. Smith. He voted 'no' on the bill that would outlaw killing babies"
Sen. Smith: "I voted no because someone slipped in an unrelated ammendment banning sending money to gambling sites"
Sen. Jones: "But you still voted 'no' to outlawing killing babies! Sen. Smith thinks that babies should be killed on sight!"

While the above example is extreme, it represents the mentality of politicians in Washington DC with regard to things like this. It's also the amount of swagger that the PACs have in US government. What ever happened to voting on common sense and doing what's right for a change.

Re:the right?

[91degrees]

"A lottery is but a tax on fools"

And it's a good thing. It's a segment of the population that is most heavily served by industry, costs the country the most money, and is most heavily represented in government. Fools should be taxed!

Re:the right?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling? And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

No they don't have any right. This is simply the result of successful lobbying by the casinos. Since when does it matter if it is unconstitutional?

The same can be said of prostitution and many other illegal things.

You chose a bad example. Prostitution is not illegal in the US. Most states have made it illegal, but that is a different topic.

Really, our government should be protecting our rights, however trivial, unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

Yeah, if only here was a method we could use to elect people that would do that. Unfortunately, the majority of people no longer value freedom. This includes both democrats and republicans. Most people think it is perfectly fine to pass laws that take away the rights of others if other people are doing things they disapprove of. The last time I pointed out freedom for individuals to make choices I was told "you're afraid of the democratic process." Freedom is dead as cultural value. It lives on only for a tiny minority and as a buzzword for corrupt politicians trying to pass another law to remove more of it.

Re:the right?

[drinkypoo]

The lottery is no different from any other gambling. There are odds, you know the odds, there is money, you spend the money. The people you give the money to thank you. Someone will definitely win a chunk of that money, but it probably won't be you. Gaming in a casino gives you better odds to win something - the lottery however offers larger payouts than casinos do. Typically you won't find any way to win more than one million at a time in a casino although I guess some of the guaranteed multi-site promotions are running higher than that.

Re:the right?

[drinkypoo]

Actually, we don't allow online gambling. We allow mobile gambling in Nevada - at least, I think that finally passed - but you are not permitted to run an online gambling site from within the US. Mobile gambling is different only in that you are required (legally) to show up and sign up, so the idea is that it's kept within the state that way. From there you are free to play video keno on your cellphone in the bathroom.

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the people who win. They get upgraded to luck-as-shit-fool.

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Article I of the Constution: Congress has the right "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" Perhaps you don't consider gambling to be commerce?

As far as "prostitution and many other things", Congress does have the right to pass laws to protect the "health and welfare" of citizens. (I'm too lazy to find a citation for this.)

While you are correct that Congress is not given any powers to legislate morality, they are given OTHER powers which may be misapplied to moral issues, e.g. the recent Supreme Court decision that the Federal Government may prohibit growing of Marijuana for personal use on the basis of the Interstate Commerce clause. This interpretation appears to suggest that ANYTHING that can be bought or sold across state lines (including sex?!?) may be regulated by the Feds... guess what -- ANYTHING can be bought or sold, to the Feds now have the right to regulation EVERYTHING! Yep, somebody somewhere can buy a blowjob, so the Feds can now make them illegal!

Re:the right?

[GrayCalx]

Thank you. Someone mod parent up. The current discussion is not about a "ban on internet gambling" rather banning sites that users use to fund their online accounts. For those not in the know, think PayPal.

Basically your state still tells you whether its legal or not to gamble online (sorry Washington). THIS bill tells the BANKS that they can't fund online gambling sites.

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even that is a mischaracterization. This bill was simply a way to put some enforcement into an activity which was already illegal. The people involved with the gambling sites doing business in the US already faced arrest. (Personally, I think nabbing a few in gunny sacks from their beds in the dead of night would have sent a pretty good message too. Don't respect our laws? Then your's don't exist, so die in a hole.) This even at that doesn't stop them from illegally plying their trade on our telecommunications infrastructure. A person can very simply open an account with a foreign bank, and continue as they like. Many things are regulated in the us. The fact that someone can't decide to start an incinerator up in their back yard and start hauling in medical waste is something I like. But to that end, I occasionally have to make concessions to the unreasonable whims of the mob. My mission, if I choose to accept it, is to vote, and if necessary campaign, or run for office to correct these injustices.

With the world being what it is, it's not hard to see why the Romans were such fans of brutal imperialism.

Re:the right?

[Sparr0]

Or a tax on people who know about and support where the money is going

Re:the right?

[wwahammy]

To be fair that wasn't really what they said. They said that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating interstate commerce, in this case the drug trade. The court said that the "market" for marijuana isn't limited to one state and therefore to allow a state to legalize it for any reason would affect that interstate marijuana market. Its not a circular argument; its just a huge stretch of logic. Or as some might say, dumb.

Re:the right?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"A lottery is but a tax on fools" - Unknown.

I've always herd it as, "The lottery is a tax on people who can't do math."

Re:the right?

[daveo0331]

Paypal banned online gambling transfers a long time ago. The credit card companies don't allow it either, because of too many chargebacks. So how do people get money to online poker sites? The money transfer services are themselves located offshore -- for example Neteller, the most popular one, is located in Canada. So you transfer money from your bank account to Neteller, then from Neteller to the poker site. There is talk of banning transfers between US banks and companies like Neteller, but the banks are very opposed to this because the way the ACH system is set up would make it very difficult/expensive to differentiate between allowed and not-allowed transactions.

Re:the right?

[cens0r]

Actually you can gamble online for horse racing. Also, the law that really bans internet gambling was the wire act which would technically allow you to set up an online casino in one state and only accept bets from people in that state.

Re:the right?

[mikael]

This was a joke in a Scottish newspaper:

"Aye hen, if it weren't for the cigarettes and the horses, we wouldn't be able to afford to stay on social security".

Recently, Scotland passed legislation to ban smoking from inside public places. The side effect was that the bingo halls started closing down, as the players who normally spent all their winnings on the slot machines now rushed outside for a smoke, then decided to go home rather than back inside.

Re:the right?

[InkDancer]

But compared to say, blackjack or craps, the lottery has terrible, terrible odds. Therefore, a tax on people who are bad at math.

Re:the right?

[Lehk228]

a huge, goatse-like streatch of logic

Re:the right?

[Lord Ender]

Interstate commerce may give them the right by some interpretation. But by doing so, they deny me of my rights to do as I please with my money. That is certainly against the spirit of the constitution. It seem quit pink to tell me what I can do with my money. It's almost... communist?

Re:the right?

[tweek]

I haven't looked at the link yet but my problem with the lottery was always that the funds would be used for education. Then of course the funds go into a general fund of which education gets a percentage. If the funds were in a (god help me here) "lock box", I would probably support it more. I think maybe the lottery money should go for the people who spend all thier money on the lottery. The stupid people.

Of course I get pissed because Georgia follows the same hipocracy of outlawing gambling while having a state-run lottery. No moral ground to stand on with THAT one.

Re:the right?

[KlomDark]

I get your point entirely. I do understand the math. However, throwing a dollar or two away once a week in return for a teeny-tiny chance to no longer have to worry about bills and retirement and such avoidable-in-a-perfect-society things, to me is more than worth it. Even for the little high you get when you dream "what if" as you check the powerball numbers. (And just like other addictive things, you pay for the high with a down after the effect wears off [fuck, I didn't win, dammit])

Re:the right?

[terrymr]

No they don't have any right. This is simply the result of successful lobbying by the casinos. Since when does it matter if it is unconstitutional?

The American Gaming Assocation (MGM, Harrahs etc) is opposed to federal restrictions on online gambling ... so who was lobbying for the casinos ? This was a leech/frist personal project.

Re:the right?

[terrymr]

Under the recent (and previous) law, interstate gambling on horse races is legal and Intrastate gambling on anything your state chooses to allow is also legal. So It's hard to argue that we permit no online gambling which is exactly what the US Government tried to tell the WTO.

Re:the right?

[terrymr]

Oddly enough the supreme court refused to overturn a lower court ruling that the wire act only applies to telephone betting on sporting events. So online casino's techincally were not illegal and probably still aren't given the wooliness of the wording in the new act.

Re:the right?

[whoever57]

The court said that the "market" for marijuana isn't limited to one state and therefore to allow a state to legalize it for any reason would affect that interstate marijuana market.

A strict reading of the constitution shows that the Feds are allowed to regulate "Commerce ...among the several States," in other words, actual interstate commerce and not "anything that affects interstate commerce." Fundamentally, it is hard to think of any activity that does not affect some kind of interstate commerce, giving the Feds unlimited authority by the reasoning of the supremes.

Re:the right?

[PhxBlue]

You chose a bad example. Prostitution is not illegal in the US. Most states have made it illegal, but that is a different topic.

Though it does explain why Congress isn't all behind bars. *Rimshot!*

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even better than that. Let suppose that the lottery made $1,000,000 last year and it *all* goes to education. Sounds good? Well, if you peer deeper into the system you'll find $1,000,000 that used to go to education is now ear-marked for something else. Net gain to education, $0.

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, our government should be protecting our rights, however trivial, unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

You're definitely new here.

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the lottery was a voluntary tax on stupidity.

Re:the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Supremes allows Congress to make regulations affecting food grown by a farmer on his own land and eaten in his own house

Right on the money. For the benefit of others: Wickard v. Filburn

Look also at the recent decision about CA's medicinal marijuana law -- essentially what they said was that the Feds could control it because they have a legitimate interest in so doing.

For the benefit of others: Gonzales v. Raich. Yeah, the people got a semi-surprise fuck on that one. One would think that Lopez and Morrison would've made Raich a winner but IMO the Supremes screwed us three ways from Sunday. I blame Kennedy (if it was anything but drugs he'd would've voted for Raich) and Scalia with his total bullshit opinion about fungibility. He basically set the stage to allow the US Govt to regulate anything produced that is "non-unique" (a vegetable garden or two copies of a picture from your printer).

If Filburn was a bad dream about a government that has gone too far then Raich is a really bad LSD trip (the kicking-and-screaming-and-drooling kind). At least there's some hope*.

* They're not perfect but they've got some worthwhile ideas that need to be at least discussed.

Re:the right?

[gd2shoe]

...The same can be said of prostitution ...
our government should be protecting our rights ... unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

I think you left a hole in your arguement. And, no, a problem does not need to be pandemic to be a public health/safety concern.
(To stretch it a bit further, also bear in mind the current-age/liberal definition of of the word "health". It has changed over the last few years in both medical and legal terms.)

Re:the right?

[CodeBuster]

Typically you won't find any way to win more than one million at a time in a casino

For the average player this is probably true, with the possible exception of regional progressive slots, Megabucks for example, which are networked together and increase the payout every time someone plays anywhere in the network but does not hit the jackpot. The Megabucks Nevada starts at $10,000,000 after a jackpot (Prior to September 2005, Megabucks Nevada reset to $7,000,000), but then again three and four reel machines with hundreds of stops have odds that are approaching the lottery anyway. The other way to see this kind of money is to become a high roller, but the casino will probably not risk these amounts unless the player in question regularly bets and loses at least $10,000 per hand. In the past there were casinos in Las Vegas, notably Binion's Horseshoe, which had a policy of, "if you can bring it then you can bet it." There are stories of people betting $1 million on a coin toss at Binion's among other more unusual wagers, but the policy was for real.

Re:the right?

[telso]

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling?

I think the real question is "Does [y]our government have any constitutional obligation to keep gambling legal?"

Re:the right?

[jez9999]

Unfortunately, the majority of people no longer value freedom. This includes both democrats and republicans.

Seriously? All 4 of em?

Re:the right?

[ArsenneLupin]

Fundamentally, it is hard to think of any activity that does not affect some kind of interstate commerce, giving the Feds unlimited authority by the reasoning of the supremes.

And that's basically the point. Just Anything affects interstate commerce (although very indirectly in most cases), and this is routinely used by Congress to pass all kinds of laws about subjects into which it has no constitutional business meddling around. "Commerce clause" has become some kind of wildcard around the limitations to federal power.

Re:the right?

[dargaud]

[...] gross hypocrisy [...] The same can be said of prostitution [...]

Interestingly, in the country where I currently live, prostitution is officially illegal, and prosecuted as such, but there is a tax category for prostitutes so they can pay their taxes like any law-abiding tax-payer. How's that for hypocrisy ? The good thing is that there is also a (IMO very good) law that prohibits government agencies to cross-correlate their files, so in this case the vice squad is not allowed to ask the tax department for a list of their tax paying prostitutes.

Re:the right?

[wud]

America is not really the land of the free. Thats more just like a slogon.

Re:the right?

[mpe]

A strict reading of the constitution shows that the Feds are allowed to regulate "Commerce ...among the several States," in other words, actual interstate commerce and not "anything that affects interstate commerce."

When did the US Government last actually do this? Anyway "regulate" in this context may actually mean "make regular"... (The common usage of words can change over time, even if their dictionary definition remains the same.)

Fundamentally, it is hard to think of any activity that does not affect some kind of interstate commerce, giving the Feds unlimited authority by the reasoning of the supremes.

Including reading things effectivly backwards, since the 10th Ammendment should supercede the "Commerce Clause". Let alone some of the creative interpretations of "commerce".

Re:the right?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The American Gaming Assocation (MGM, Harrahs etc) is opposed to federal restrictions on online gambling ... so who was lobbying for the casinos ?

I believe in this case it was a consortium of native american casinos, which are much more numerous than the AMA's interests and also benefit a lot more from location than brand, making online gambling more of a danger to them.

Re:the right?

[Cervantes]

Actually, I prefer:

"The lottery is just a tax on the mathematically impaired."

Re:the right?

[SonicSpike]

And it's funny because some of the Founding Fathers (FF) wrote afterwords that the ICC was supposed to "make commerce regular" between the States - not actively control it. Remember, this was a time when States were independent "countries" and coined their own money, had their own currency, and there were mini-trade wars going on between the States. The FF wanted to stop all of that nonsense but they didn't want the Fed to supercede the States in this regard.

Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[filesiteguy]

You realize - if Antigua or anyone else - claims we are violating Free Trade and goes ahead with ignoring IP, we will have no choice but to assign them to the axis of evil and then invade.

Actually the article was interesting. I wondered what kind of mess the recent online gambling act would create. Oh, and I read, too, that it doesn't anywhere prohibit US firms from creating gambling sites aimed at foreign markets.

Interesting world, we live in here with the interweb...

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[diersing]

They were able to accomplish this by installing a series of one-way valves in the Interweb's tubes.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Hah! The USA couldn't invade my *ass* let alone Antigua! See abu ghraib before you bite off more than you can chew. As for invading an island roughly twice the size of DC. Please well just drop some MOAB and then declare victory.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[Uthic]

I'll bite. This troll was amusing. You presume a lot there. It's akin to a teacher looking at a mistake a student has made and then pronouncing that student is utterly incapable of solving that problem ever again. The US has enough infantry to invade Antigua, of all places. And what nation can invade three nations and wage war against them currently ? Pretty high bar to set.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[drinkypoo]

Oh, and I read, too, that it doesn't anywhere prohibit US firms from creating gambling sites aimed at foreign markets.

That's because the law already prohibits operating a game of chance within the borders of the various states besides Nevada. Nevada prohibits running an online gaming operation, though they do allow the subtly-different "mobile gaming" IIRC.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[impleri]

FWIW, Nazi Germany did a pretty good job of a multi-front war.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[camperdave]

Ever read the US Constitution? The "right to bear arms" makes every gun owner part of the US militia. They can be pressed into service by the government at any time. Fit or not, that's 300 million soldiers at a moments notice. Don't mess with Texas.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[onkelonkel]

Of course its a dreadful troll, but...he has one thing right. You don't own a piece of earth until you have one of your guys with a rifle standing on it. You can inflict damage up to the limits of your arsenal; nuke it into a sheet of glass if you like; but without the guy and his rifle you don't own it.

General Shinseki told Rumsfeld he needed N guys with rifles to hold Iraq. Rumsfeld said you'll do it with N/3. Guess who was right?

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[myowntrueself]

Watching those militia men run (or, rather, waddle) across a battlefield would be quite a sight.

Thats why I said it'd be great TV.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[myowntrueself]

And what nation can invade three nations and wage war against them currently ?

What nation *thinks* it can? The USA of course! Go USA!

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[myowntrueself]

Yes, it was a dreadful troll and for that I am truly sorry (stifles a giggle).

I just try to draw attention to the paper-tiger nature of US military might at every opportunity and this seemed like as good as any :)

The CIA world fact book has figures for 'fit for military service' for many nations. It used to have those figures for the USA. Those figures were, retroactively, changed to 'NA' post 9/11/2001.

Prior to that a little time on the spreadsheet revealed that the USA could not field as many troops *fit* for military service, as (eg) the United frickin Kingdom!

No other nation on Earth had as low a proportion of *fit* for service to total gross population count.

So yeah the USA has some heavily armed militia, but they can't run for fuck (especially not carrying a decent amount of ammo and equipment). They wouldn't make great 'minute men' or infantry.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[elphins.son]

You mean they did a pretty good job of LOSING a multi-front war. The initial push on each front went well, but IIRC once the initial push was slowed, they never regained their momentum.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[tweek]

While I don't support the war in Iraq, make no mistake that the US Military couldn't obliterate and occupy and country it really set its mind to. You might be occupying a sheet of glass after you nuked it but you're still occupying it ;)

The thing that has blown me away is how "soft" the military has become. And I'm not regurgitating some stupid Michael Savage/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh talking point here.

For all intents and purposes, we've been "gentle" in Iraq. We have much more firepower at our disposal but I think Rummy didn't have the stomach to deal with the consequences of dropping megaton bombs in a known insurgent city or outpost because of the collateral damage. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do but I'm making the point that if you're going to do something, right or wrong, do it all the way. You do much more damage by pussy-footing around. I think if I knew that my "liberators" were going to dump a bunker buster on any location that was suspected of harboring a terrorist, I'd fucking make sure my house didn't have a terrorist in it and make sure everyone knew it.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[onkelonkel]

It's the diet. Biscuits and gravy for breakfast (white flour and lard in a sauce of.....white flour and lard). A 24 oz T-Bone is the "ladies cut". Supersized everything. And, apparently no social stigma attached to being morbidly obese.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[myowntrueself]

You do much more damage by pussy-footing around. I think if I knew that my "liberators" were going to dump a bunker buster on any location that was suspected of harboring a terrorist, I'd fucking make sure my house didn't have a terrorist in it and make sure everyone knew it.

Yes, I suppose that the USA could have learnt a great deal from Israels tremendous success in using such heavy-handed tactics. It certainly seems to be working for them.

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[matt21811]

And that's different from the current US situation?

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[tweek]

I would honestly claim that even Israel is being restrained as well. When I mean stop pussy-footing I mean level an entire city. Like I said, not the right thing to do but If you're gonna do it....

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[filesiteguy]

Interesting. I wondered about that. Thanks!

Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State?

[myowntrueself]

I think you just need to switch to decaf ;)

The US drug laws may cause flouting of IP

[Anonymous Coward]

US government hypocritical. News at 11.

Great firewall of U.S. next?

[Hankenstein]

        Yes, it is a stretch, however, anybody else see any similarities between the U.S. forbidding offshore gambling and China forbidding everything *we* think is good?

No similarities

[Anonymous Coward]

US government officials must pledge to protect a document that limits their powers to legislate these very issues. So the US government is acting in a much more criminal manor than the Chinese government.

Re:No similarities

[Anonymous Coward]

American political terminology confuses me. Is the "criminal manor" the white house or the senate?

Antiguasoft Vista!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista"

Link please.

Re:Antiguasoft Vista!

[Xyrus]

Link? Damn your so 1990's.

Torrent?

~X~

The freaking Juice man!

[diersing]

You obviously have NO IDEA how gambling works. If people can't go in debt then the juice doesn't start, without the juice we'll have to rely on the elderly and convention junkies to support the industry and that'll never do. You think the whole thing is limited to the strip? Wake up and smell the baseball bat.

Re:The freaking Juice man!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you explain what 'the juice' is to those of us who aren't chronic gamblers?

Re:The freaking Juice man!

[diersing]

Think of it as interest, compounded daily (or on your body parts if you don't pay in a timely manner)

Re:The freaking Juice man!

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have NO IDEA how gambling works. The bookie opens a line usually in accordance with vegas. Money flows on one side or the other and the bookie moves the lines to get action on the other side. If the bookie has his books balanced he loses nothing and in the occasional times when there's a push, the bookie collects all the money. Anyways the bookie always wins.

As for the "juice" or "vig" (short for vigorish) it is not primarily the interest payed on loans or debt. It is a "charge" for the services of the bookie. Usually it comes as a percent of your bet. Lets say the vig is 10%. You place a bet of 50 dollars. If you lose you owe 55, if you win you win 45. As stated before, the bookie always wins.

Re:The freaking Juice man!

[diersing]

Well, in less respectable circles, if you owe the bookie $100 on Monday and the juice is 10%, you owe him $110 on Tuesday, $121 on Wednesday and so forth. Its meant as a motivator to pay what you owe in a timely fashion. What you say is true in regards to the vig (as a percentage of the bet and the effect on the payout) and the house always win - like a rake at the poker table. But once you are into negative numbers the bookies become loan sharks and things change a little. I'm sure there are also regional differences in the practice, and I was speaking more to the "juice is running".

Re:The freaking Juice man!

[Handpaper]

Well, in less respectable circles, if you owe the bookie $100 on Monday and the juice is 10%, you owe him $110 on Tuesday[]

Hey, we used to lend money at school on those terms, and for the same reason - you got paid back awfully fast.
If you didn't, the debt mounted rather quickly. I lent somebody 20 pence once, and forgot about it - for a year. I let him off that one. I don't think he had the £256 billion :)

Re:The freaking Juice man!

[diersing]

Oh, you will pay down some the interest in the forms of broken fingers before things get too out of hand. Of course, in general, there is more threatening then actual beating, an injured man who can't go to work is very hard to get money from the next week. The 10% was just an example, but if you are already in bad standing the number does tend to be higher then those that are in good standing.

The whole internet gambling thing is easily solved

[krell]

If you don't like online casinos, stay away from them. There, problem completely solved (except for the nagging problem of online casino spam...).

Copyright, not patent

[jibjibjib]

Antigua would be fully justified in ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws.

[...]

Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista.

Antiguasoft Vista would be copyright infringement as well as being trademark and possibly patent infringement. Are they able to ignore copyright laws too?

Re:Copyright, not patent

[PhysicsPhil]

Antiguasoft Vista would be copyright infringement as well as being trademark and possibly patent infringement. Are they able to ignore copyright laws too?

If the US is found to be violating WTO rules with its gambling legislation and refuses to change them, Antigua is entitled to apply to the WTO for relief (i.e. punishment for the US). Generally this would take the form of tariffs on US products, but retaliation can also take the form of suspending IP protection for American goods. In this case, within the jurisdiction of Antigua, it would be open season on American IP. Software, movies and TV, along with patents (trademarks too?) would all lose protection until the US complied with WTO rules again.

This would apply exclusively to American IP, and would be totally legal under the WTO rules. It is designed to put pressure on American companies, so that they will in turn put pressure on their Congress critters.

Re:Copyright, not patent

[Anonymous Coward]

The question isn't whether they can ignore US law; they can. The question is whether they can ignore US nuclear weapons after Antiguasoft releases a Haliburton product. They might be better advised to wait until January 2009.

Re:why ban

[kfg]

RTFA?

KFG

*ALL* IP laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Protection of US IP in Antigua is only via treaty (in this case through WTO membership). Antigua would be free to ignore any and all US laws as a way of obtaining its remedy against the US.

How does this affect the Linux kernel?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this affect the Linux Kernel? Isn't it (primarily) a US Copyrighted item, published with a license that allows people fairly free distribution requirements? Could (for example) Microsoft move their offices to Antigua, keep their IP (which is now Antiguan, not American) safe, and freely publish MS Linux?

Re:How does this affect the Linux kernel?

[meringuoid]

How does this affect the Linux Kernel? Isn't it (primarily) a US Copyrighted item, published with a license that allows people fairly free distribution requirements? Could (for example) Microsoft move their offices to Antigua, keep their IP (which is now Antiguan, not American) safe, and freely publish MS Linux?

Only if they first stripped out all contributions by non-US citizens, which would still be copyright of the author and only legal to distribute under the terms of the GPL. Including Linus. Good luck with that.

But wait, I thought the WTO was evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Let me get this straight -- The WTO is sticking up for this tiny little country, against the USA, in the name of freedom to gamble online. They're still evil right? Because they're sticking up for mega-corporations, right? I didn't get the shit kicked out of me in Seattle for no reason, right? I'm confused. Please, some of my fellow Fast Food Nation/Michael Moore/Jon Katz loving slashdotters, help me sort through this.

Re:But wait, I thought the WTO was evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Rest easy. You didn't get the shit kicked out of you in Seattle for nothing. You got the shit kicked out of you in Seattle because you are an asshole.

Re:But wait, I thought the WTO was evil

[T.E.D.]

The WTO is sticking up for this tiny little country, against the USA, in the name of freedom to gamble online. They're still evil right? Because they're sticking up for mega-corporations, right? I didn't get the shit kicked out of me in Seattle for no reason, right?

Apparently you did, as you seem to be quite clueless on what the issues were. Perhaps you just had a thing for chicks who don't shave? In that case, you should tell us if you got anything out of it. On second thought, don't. I just ate...

The issue I heard from the people in Seattle way back when was that WTO is an unelected body that has been given the power to veto nearly any US law that somehow affects the bottom line of a company based outside the US. Mostly I think they were worried about our labor and environmental laws. However, this story illustrates that the problem doesn't stop there, and is very real.

george carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking is legal
selling is legal
so why is selling fucking illegal?

RTF article dude, you're way off base

[hardcorejon]

Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

The reason Antigua won was because the US laws are not consistent. US was claiming a "moral exemption" but only transactions to offshore casinos were being regulated. Antigua's argument, which the WTO agreed with, was that if you claim the moral exemption, you have to be consistent, across the board.

If Saudi Arabia only allowed porn from Saudi websites but made Dutch porn illegal, you might have an argument. But if SA decides to ban all porn, the WTO is OK with that too.

Read the fricking article next time. Someone with such a low slashdot ID as you should know better.

Full of misinformation

[gurps_npc]

1) The US government clearly has the authority to make it illegal for a US citizen, inside the US to gamble, on or off the internet. Such laws already exist and have existed for MANY decades.

2) The act in question does not do that at all. Instead it makes it illegal for US credit card companies to send payments to Internet Gambling sites. Again, this is entirely legal for the US to do. It is not a free trade issue at all. In fact, it gives a HUGE advantage to non-US companies. Foreign Credit card companies are happy, they may break into the US market. If you get a European Credit Card, even when in the US, you may use your European Credit Card to pay gambling debts to Internet gambling sites, because the European Credit Card company is not subject to US laws.

3) The problem that Antigua is claiming is that the US does allow certain types of Internet gambling, and therefore under WTO agreements, it must allow all. The WTO has offered the US to either fully ban all internet gamblign of any kind, or to let all in. The US has not yet decided which to do. The WTO would be fine if the US banned everything.

4) The problem has NOTHING at all to do with the recently passed Act, the Antigua law suit was begun in 2003, the Act passed in 2006.

5) I think the idea that Antigua would violate patents and copyrights more than it already does is silly. The US has so many, many, ways, far short of violence to punish Antigua, such as cutting off ALL payments of any kind to any company based in Antigua, that it would stupid for Antigua to do this. Instead, they will do something smarter, like impose a Tax on US services.

Re:Full of misinformation

[JazzyJ]

1) The US government clearly has the authority to make it illegal for a US citizen, inside the US to gamble, on or off the internet. Such laws already exist and have existed for MANY decades.

No, actually they don't. The federal govt. would like you to THINK they do, but the reality is the US Govt cannot do so. The laws that existed prior to what got snuck into the safe port act have to do with interstate gambling. e.g.: Me, in Missouri, placing bets on the phone to a bookie in California. They can't pass a law that makes online gambling illegal in all 50 states because they don't have the jurisdiction to enforce it anywhere except DC, guam, puerto rico, or other federal -territories-. States are sovereign in that respect.

The STATES themselves do have the authority and -do- have the laws that prohibit gambling anywhere other than what's spelled out as legal in the gaming laws within that state.

That all being said, me doing something in the privacy of my own home, between consenting adults, is fine so long as no one's constitutional rights are violated.... is our business...and not the state or the federal govt.

Re:Full of misinformation

[Lanoitarus]

>

I don't think you understand how credit cards work, let alone this law. The law makes it illegal for any company with OPERATIONS in the US to faciliate payments between US citizens and gambling sites offshore. This does not mean just US companies. For instance, my HSBC (Which is a UK company) credit card is also prohibited from doing this. Technically, if a company with zero US presence were to give me a credit card, they would be allowed to do as they wished--- but without a US presence, how would they bill me?

Re:Full of misinformation

[benicillin]

i wish i had mod points so i could mod this post and the other two replies up, they are by far the most informative posts on the topic. they cleared everything up on this issue. but my question is: since the state laws control gambling - is it true that prior to the passing of this recent law that disallows credit card companies from sending payments to these sites it was illegal to gamble online? wouldn't this be a law that each state would have to pass, since this power is delegated to the states? or is this a 'federal question' since it deals with diversity (ie. parties from different states, or another country)

Re:Full of misinformation

[Sloppy]

The US government clearly has the authority to make it illegal for a US citizen, inside the US to gamble, on or off the internet.

If that is clear, then the Tenth Amendment is opaque.

Re:Full of misinformation

[terrymr]

Also, the wire act only prohibits bets on sporting events, not poker, not casino games in general. The supreme court declined to overrule the lower courts ruling on this.

Re:Full of misinformation

[ogrizzo]

Prepaid credit cards: you transfer the amount by wire, and then it's yours to use as you see fit.

It's not going to be cheap, though: expect 20-50$ commissions on each transaction.

Re:Full of misinformation

[gurps_npc]

I do understand. What you said "technically" was exactly what I meant. Billing you is no problem, it is done the exact same way you get billed if you buy something overseas.

Re:Full of misinformation

[gurps_npc]

I said US government. I did not say US federal government. The US government applies to both state and federal. The states have the right to make it illegal to engagne in gambling within them, the federal government has the right to make it illegal to engage in interstate of inter-country gambling.

Re:Full of misinformation

[gurps_npc]

You need to learn to read better.

I said US government. The US is a country. It is composed of many parts, including both local and national governments. I did not say US federal government. The US government applies to both state and federal. The states have the right to make it illegal to engagne in gambling within them, the federal government has the right to make it illegal to engage in interstate of inter-country gambling.

Which is exactly what has happend.

Your argument, is entirely foolish, founded on things that did not happen. The Federal Government did not in any way violate the 10th amendment.

Re:Full of misinformation

[gurps_npc]

No, those posts just put in irrelavent points.

1) The states do NOT have the sole right to control gambling. Instead they have the sole right to control gambling internal to that state.

2) The act in question is about Internet gambling, which clearly falls under the national acts, as it almost always crosses state bounds. The US federal government has the right to pass laws about it. Note the Supreme Court has already ruled that things that are almost always inter-state, but may occasionally be interanl to a state still qualify as Inter-state. That is, even if you live in Vegas and are gambling on a web site owned by a Vegas company, it still falls under federal jurisdiction, because most such gambling would not be solely in Vegas.

3)When I said the US government has the right to pass such laws, I did not say Federal Governement. US government includes both state and Federal. Therefore my original argument stands. As such, internet gambling is DEFINITELY a federal issue, not a state issue.

Re:Full of misinformation

[JazzyJ]

I think you need to learn to say what you mean and take things in context. When someone says, "US Government" most people think of the US Federal Govt., not state. The discussion was about what the federal government had done..and could and could not do.

The US Federal Government did NOT make gambling online illegal. They passed a bill that disallows US banks/money transfer businesses/credit card companies from making money transfers to online gambling sites. Most US banks and credit card companies were already NOT doing that anyway, so ...the bill is largely redundant anyway. All they did was just make -that- illegal.

In Louisiana, *gambling* is illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Louisiana, *gambling* is illegal. It would be unconstitutional to permit it in this state.

We have *gaming* instead.

(Yep, they changed the name of what you do at casinos or in the lottery, and since you're only *gaming*, not *gambling*, it's perfectly legal.)

that's not "free trade"

[dAzED1]

"free trade infringement" - if it's being made illegal in general, then the same opportunities exist outside the US as do inside the US. Thus, "free trade."

Sortof like the Supreme Court case a couple years ago that said if a state allows wineries within the state to ship wine to indivual people, they have to allow other states to ship wine into the state to individual people.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so significant about this is that Antigua would be fully justified (and I imagine, would get a lot of support from other nations) in ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws.

...the US would be fully justified at forcing carriers to block access to destination IPs of offshore gambling sites and found proxies that let people get through to them. Funny how that works.

Because it's their second largest industry

[KingSkippus]

From the second FA:

Gambling and betting services are the second-largest industry in Antigua and Barbuda, after tourism

If the U.S. effectively outlawed the second largest industry in my country but permitted it in its own, yeah, I'd be upset, too. Remember, gambling isn't illegal in the U.S. In fact, neither is online gambling. Betting on horse racing and online gambling within a state is protected under the law that was recently passed.

Obligatory

[The_Wilschon]

Read the fricking article next time. Someone with such a low slashdot ID as you should know better.

You must be new here.

Yes, but...

[urbanradar]

Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista

Yes, but does it run GNU/Antigua?

Those who ignore history...

[alexo]

Maybe you misunderstand -- the US can't nab the launderers on IP charges if they are in Antigua, short of invading.

And your point is...?

Re:Those who ignore history...

[Red Flayer]

And your point is...?

A refutation of what you claimed in your response? That if piracy has anything to do with money-laundering, then the launderers can just be arrested, that it's trivial to do so?

Re:Those who ignore history...

[alexo]

And your point is...?

A refutation of what you claimed in your response?

My response? You must be confusing me with someone else.
The post you quoted was my only contribution to the discussion.

My point was that the US of A has no problem invading countries if they think that it is in their financial interests to do so.

free trade

[falconwolf]

It's also consistent with our status as an independent nation-state.

So India would be consistent in banning US agricultural products then? Maybe you didn't know or don't recall but the WTO trade talks during the summer fell apart because the US and EU refused to stop subsidizing their agribusinesses. Because of this refusal India walked out. Indian farmers can't compete with US or EU farmers who get paid billions of dollars and Euros and then are able to sale food cheaper than it costs to grow. Indian farmers are committing suicide by the thousands because they can't compete in such a lopsided market. Basically the same is happening in Mexico because of NAFTA. Big UG agrobusinesses are able to export corn to Mexico below prices Mexican farmers can grow corn thus causing Mexicans to "illegally immigrate" to the US.

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US.

And Bush violated Iraq's national sovereignty by invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Also it's trying to vilate many other countries sovereignty by trying to force them to accept US exports while restricting their exports to the US.

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

Not all gambling it banned, only some is.

Falcon

See Article .357

[Anonymous Coward]

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling?

dude, take a civics class and get educated!

article .357 gives american government the right to do what its leaders want.

buyer beware

[falconwolf]

So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards.

The subject bar contains the keywords, "buyer beware". As long as a third party isn't getting harmed something should not be made illegal. Especially here in the USA which is supposed to be the land of the free.

Falcon

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

Land of the free doesn't mean land of the I can scam you. Which is what could happen. Gambling is most likely illegal in the first place because of all the corruption around it. It is one thing for a guy to lose his house, car and first born child in a poker game. It is another thing when it regularly happens because someone was using marked cards.

Unfortunately, This is what happens. You take something people enjoy, someone finds an edge and beats the odds then everyone else complains and beg for something to be done. But as long as we are allowing it under stick control, and only in areas the majority of the people want, (states etc..)we need to make sure it is legit. it is that simple.

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

It's not a scam if you know you're being taken. It is gambling after all.

I don't see how this is any different than say, selling socks online. If my website tells you that you'll get 4 pairs of socks for $9.99 and I don't give you 4 pairs of socks, or if I charge you more than $9.99, it's fraud. If my website says that no one at the table has knowledge of other players hands, and that turns out not to be true, it's still fraud. Why does gambling need its own special laws?

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

Why does gambling need its own special laws?

Because more people have taken more then the price of 10 dollar socks from other by cheating. Thats why. If selling socks and ripping people off in the proccess was as easy as rigging gambling places, then selling socks would have as many laws.

I can tell you several different ways to cheat at online pocker. Especialy when you pick the tables to sit at. I can tell you how to cheat at cards in person or on the internet too. you could catch me in person but not on th internet.

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

Just because people's expectations for return in gambling are lower than they are with retail items is not evidence it's easier to defraud them; I would argue that the same lower expectations raise the threshold for fraud, as people are not expecting a specific good in return for their payment. They're buying entertainment, which at least in theory is unrelated to the outcome of the game.

But even if you assume it's easier to defraud people with gambling, couldn't you solve the problem with voluntary, publicly-supervised registration and regulation rather than a ban or manditory regulation? Couldn't the government establish a regulation body which ensures that voluntarily-registered gaming sites are fairly run and include sufficient safegaurds to protect gamblers from malicious peers? The body could even be entirely self-funded. Then you as a gambler could choose not to gamble at unregistered sites. Or you could choose to gamble more cheaply at unregistered sites, with the knowledge that the site is unregistered and therefore unregulated.

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

Just because people's expectations for return in gambling are lower than they are with retail items is not evidence it's easier to defraud them; I would argue that the same lower expectations raise the threshold for fraud, as people are not expecting a specific good in return for their payment. They're buying entertainment, which at least in theory is unrelated to the outcome of the game.

It isn't about their expectations for a return as much as their expectations period. If you buy a pair of socks and don't receive them, You know you got ripped. If you get ripped at online gambling, there is no way currently to know it happened. Every real casino (in America) is regulated and checked by a authoritative gaming commission of some sorts who says the casinos aren't cheating you and clarifies the rules of conduct so you know what you expect from the casinos. How do you do this with online gambling? Have then buy a verisign certification seal/logo that can be imported from any other site? They would still know they are cheating but would you then know your being cheated?

But even if you assume it's easier to defraud people with gambling, couldn't you solve the problem with voluntary, publicly-supervised registration and regulation rather than a ban or manditory regulation? Couldn't the government establish a regulation body which ensures that voluntarily-registered gaming sites are fairly run and include sufficient safegaurds to protect gamblers from malicious peers? The body could even be entirely self-funded. Then you as a gambler could choose not to gamble at unregistered sites. Or you could choose to gamble more cheaply at unregistered sites, with the knowledge that the site is unregistered and therefore unregulated.

I don't think outside getting code certified and sealing servers and inspecting often along with registration of winners anything could be done. And I don't think voluntary registration would work either. It would need to be a regulated government approved source that conforms to laws within the lands of the person gambling too. Nothing else would have the necessary teeth to ensure that a person gambling is actually gambling and not just an unwittingly participant in the scam of the week. Again, if a few people notice they don't get socks after buying them, you know whats going on and can do something about it, If a few people lose their life savings in a game they are expected to lose at, you wouldn't know. Apple and oranges, the only thing in common are that they are fruits and grow on trees.

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

If you get ripped at online gambling, there is no way currently to know it happened.

That's exactly my point. If you can't tell that it's fraud, then it isn't fraud, it's just you giving someone money. And you can tell it happens -- if you are told you have a 40% chance of winning, then after placing 1000 bets you should have won very nearly 400 of them. I'll grant you it may be impractical to undertake that kind of study as an individual, but it's hardly impossible. I also fail to see how this is any different than casino gambling; how do I prove the casino is screwing me, other than through a statistical study or inspection of their gaming equipment (which isn't a privilege allowed to the general public)?

I don't think outside getting code certified and sealing servers and inspecting often along with registration of winners anything could be done.

What else do you need? What else do real-world casinos provide beyond certification of fair playing equipment and monitoring of winners? What's so different about having a gaming machine be in a rack rather than on a casino floor?

It would need to be a regulated government approved source that conforms to laws within the lands of the person gambling too.

I specifically said that the regulating body would be organized by the government. I presumed that to include the authority of law in prosecuting persons and organizations that fail to comply. I don't see why that means that the regulation system must be compulsory -- is it really so hard to click the link that goes to the www.gaming.gov website and shows that "www.gamblingsite.com" is in fact in compliance? Then both gamblers and gambling sites have a choice in the level of regulation under which they choose to operate.

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

That's exactly my point. If you can't tell that it's fraud, then it isn't fraud, it's just you giving someone money. And you can tell it happens -- if you are told you have a 40% chance of winning, then after placing 1000 bets you should have won very nearly 400 of them. I'll grant you it may be impractical to undertake that kind of study as an individual, but it's hardly impossible. I also fail to see how this is any different than casino gambling; how do I prove the casino is screwing me, other than through a statistical study or inspection of their gaming equipment (which isn't a privilege allowed to the general public)?

If you cannot tell it is fraud, then that makes it fraud. It isn't anything other then you not getting what you expected or someone missrepresening the nature of the product your selling. The fact you cannot tell this makes it even worse.

And a 40% chance of winning wold only count if you were the only person at that table or machine placing the 1000 bets. Once you figure other people taking some of that probability from you as well as the difference in somethign like slot machines were it might be required to pay out something in the neiborhood of 40% total money taken in and not on totalt bets. Then in that case, it can be rigged to pay out little amount when you pot is big and larger amounts when it is smaller to increase the chances of you betting more. Then the payout could be corect, the amount of wins would be differen't and the machine if manipulating you to spend more so the majority of money you placed in stays in.

What else do you need? What else do real-world casinos provide beyond certification of fair playing equipment and monitoring of winners? What's so different about having a gaming machine be in a rack rather than on a casino floor?

Ok. how are you going to enforce it? How are you goign to stop me from rigging a texas holdem game and a dozen of my 20000 slot machines?, in a rack on the internet, from a country that is outside you grasp? How are you going to stop me from tagging onto a couple open wireless routers, hacking or colocating a server or two outside the reach of the governemnt and feeding certain servers to people who apear to be big spenders. Then going to spamhouses and having them get people to show up? Or flagging a message board? And we know spam, as terrible as it is, is effective enough for people to make millions for doing it. How will Joe user know I'm a flyby night operations and not a cetified one? After all, i can import the certifications from the legit websites.

I specifically said that the regulating body would be organized by the government. I presumed that to include the authority of law in prosecuting persons and organizations that fail to comply. I don't see why that means that the regulation system must be compulsory -- is it really so hard to click the link that goes to the www.gaming.gov website and shows that "www.gamblingsite.com" is in fact in compliance? Then both gamblers and gambling sites have a choice in the level of regulation under which they choose to operate.

Is it so hard to spoof the site? Maybe drop some spyware in the machine that redirect the URL to a phishing style site that mimics the governments with my name and stuff on it? It is a lot harder to do with a street address but I know what I just described can be done. I just cleaned some spyware from a customers computer that did exactly that. Except It redirected adware sites and antivirus sites to stop you from getting updates or downloading programs to help rid your computer of it. It was really funny watching a popup windows make a claim the "nortans new update system" was done updating and if you experienced problems with the old update you needed to buy the new version of the product then sent you to some russian/tiwan site when you clicked on the buy now button so you coldn't do that corectly.

The internet as great a

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

If you cannot tell it is fraud, then that makes it fraud.

So if you pay me to feed birds for a year, but don't actually watch me do it, it's fraud? If you came back a year later you'd have no way to know if I feed the birds or not. You paid me trusting that I'd feed the birds, and the legal standard is and should be on you to prove that I didn't, rather than on me to prove that I did. I still don't see how gambling is any different.

And a 40% chance of winning wold only count if you were the only person at that table or machine placing the 1000 bets.

No, if I have a 40% chance of winning, I have a 40% chance of winning. Other people playing do no affect my odds in fair games. If I'm playing against other people, rather than a pure game of chance, the odds are already unpredictible, so you'd have to devise another test.

required to pay out ... 40% total money taken in and not on totalt bets

This is in fact how most real-world slot machines currently operate, as it removes the risk of overall loss. And this method of payout can be tested just as easily as the 40% of bets method.

Ok. how are you going to enforce it? How are you goign to stop me from rigging a texas holdem game and a dozen of my 20000 slot machines?

How do we enforce it in real-world casinos? I'm still waiting for an explaination of how computers in a rack are different than computers on the gaming floor. Sure, the computers in a rack are on the Internet, which adds some risk. But they have the benefit of not being physically exposed to gamblers. If they are properly managed I see no reason one would be inherently less secure than another.

How will Joe user know I'm a flyby night operations and not a cetified one?

As I suggested, a simple link to http://www.registeredonlinegambling.gov/yourSite would either return "Yes, the specified site is certififed" or "No, the specified site not certified". I never suggested any system that allowed sites to certify themselves, though I could see such a system being used in conjuction with external verification. I also clearly voiced my opinion that it should be up to gamblers to decide how much regulation they want to play under; anything else is just a nanny-state in my opinion.

Is it so hard to spoof the site? Maybe drop some spyware in the machine that redirect the URL to a phishing style site that mimics the governments with my name and stuff on it?

It's not hard at all. But if your local computer is compromised the spyware could steal your credit card information even when you're using legitimate, non-gambling sites. This sort of concern has nothing to do with gambling; using a compromised terminal makes any transaction unsafe.

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

So if you pay me to feed birds for a year, but don't actually watch me do it, it's fraud? If you came back a year later you'd have no way to know if I feed the birds or not. You paid me trusting that I'd feed the birds, and the legal standard is and should be on you to prove that I didn't, rather than on me to prove that I did. I still don't see how gambling is any different.

It is more like, I pay you to feed birds for a year (lets say chickens) and You buy dog food and feed your dogs claiming that the chickens will eat the bugs attacked by the spilt dog food. And because I cannot verify that your not feeding my chickens when they don't die but they don't gain wieght and become ill quit often, it makes that scam even worse. You see, offering one thing and delivering another at the benefit of yourself is wrong. Hiding it so you cannot be caught makes it worse.

I cannot believe I am arguing that scamming someone is bad and your countering with "not if they don't know they are being scammed" It boils down to someone baiting then stealing and your opinion seems to be that it is ok if no one notices. amazing!

No, if I have a 40% chance of winning, I have a 40% chance of winning. Other people playing do no affect my odds in fair games. If I'm playing against other people, rather than a pure game of chance, the odds are already unpredictible, so you'd have to devise another test.

No, lets look at blackjack. that 40% chance of winning is spread accross the player playing the house. If your the only one at the table, good, if someone sits in, that 40% chance get mixed with them. Now what if you 40% chance of winning at slots were actualy 40% of the machines/servers life that day. Saying a Slot machine pays 40% of the time wouldn't mean only when your playing it. So lets say I played it first and won 50% of the time Now you have to build the amount of bet back up in order for it to pay again so your 40% just changed.

How do we enforce it in real-world casinos? I'm still waiting for an explaination of how computers in a rack are different than computers on the gaming floor. Sure, the computers in a rack are on the Internet, which adds some risk. But they have the benefit of not being physically exposed to gamblers. If they are properly managed I see no reason one would be inherently less secure than another.

In the real world? lol.. We have every game certified to a government standard, have counter in them to monitor their actions, make casinos log every time the access panels are opened and account for them, have random inspections of the machines, investigators to follow up on complaints from citizens who think they got robbed, cameras watching other games for wrong doings, dealers and operators are licensed and know they could be imprisoned if they cheat someone. In all the shear mechanics of getting enough people involved to allow the scamming would prohibit it. But one server on the internet with one operator, in a distant country that doesn't abide by US laws and would probably just laugh at the hint of wanting an inspection? you tell me, wich is more likley?

Now, We could do the enforcement and all with internet gambling. Maybe do it the same way the other gambling is enforces but require all online casinos to co locate their "casino server" farm in at a specific building that would allow inspectors to monitor it. Then block every other casino or block all their wire transfers but scamers could still get around it.

As for the link to a site, I just described how easy that could be spoofed. What If I included the spy ware necessary on my site when offering a trial version. You install it, Play for free or house credit and bam, I'm on the list without being on it. You could also inject your company on the list if you know how the list is presented and you place a link on your site. So nothing actually needs to be installed either.

I

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

It is more like, I pay you to feed birds for a year (lets say chickens) and You buy dog food and feed your dogs claiming that the chickens will eat the bugs attacked by the spilt dog food. And because I cannot verify that your not feeding my chickens when they don't die but they don't gain wieght and become ill quit often, it makes that scam even worse. You see, offering one thing and delivering another at the benefit of yourself is wrong. Hiding it so you cannot be caught makes it worse.

You're making this much too complicated. If you hired me to keep your chickens healthy and to make them gain weight, then I would have failed to comply. If you simply hired me to feed them without any other obligation, then I would not be defrauding you, I would just not be meeting your expectations. Luckily for me, expectations are not part of legal agreements, and I don't have to meet them to be compliant.

What is the agreement in gambling? As far as I can tell it's simply that a particular game will be played in a particular way. That particular way should include a definition of your payback; so long as it does you can determine when someone is defrauding you, if you were so inclined. And if the rules don't include a definition of expected payback I don't see how you can possibly be defrauded in terms of insufficient payout.

No, lets look at blackjack. that 40% chance of winning is spread accross the player playing the house. If your the only one at the table, good, if someone sits in, that 40% chance get mixed with them. Now what if you 40% chance of winning at slots were actually 40% of the machines/servers life that day. Saying a Slot machine pays 40% of the time wouldn't mean only when your playing it. So lets say I played it first and won 50% of the time Now you have to build the amount of bet back up in order for it to pay again so your 40% just changed.

First, as I said before, if I have a 40% chance of winning, I have a 40% chance of winning, or the game isn't fair. Games where other players affect the outcome are not ruled by such simple probabilities.

But that being said, your statistical analysis of blackjack is flawed. Other player do affect the cards that are available, but given a sufficiently large sample their effect is negligible, because other players cannot make you lose to the dealer, nor are you competing against them. They do affect the available cards in shoe, but their effect is just as likely to be beneficial as detrimental, since they may just as easily consume card beneficial for the dealer as for the player. Therefore any sample large enough to average their effect should produce the same results as playing by yourself.

For every scenario you can put in place to protect people from being scammed in online gambling, there is an easy way to defeat it. We just don't have the ability yet to stop it from happening.

I wouldn't argue with that at all. I just don't think A) we should expect to entirely stop it from happening B) that such expections, should they exist, could ever be reasonably meet C) that gambling is inherently different than any other financial transactions or D) that the Internet world is significantly different from the non-Internet world with respect to this kind of security.

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

You're making this much too complicated. If you hired me to keep your chickens healthy and to make them gain weight, then I would have failed to comply. If you simply hired me to feed them without any other obligation, then I would not be defrauding you, I would just not be meeting your expectations. Luckily for me, expectations are not part of legal agreements, and I don't have to meet them to be compliant.

Ok, then it would be to keep them healthy too. Because when I gamble, I expect there to be a chance I might win. When there isn't because the game is rigged then it doesn't meet what they are advertising it to be and violates our aggreement. But with the chickens and the regular casinos, there are ways to check on it. There wouldn't be or couldn't be any comprehensive way to come to the same conclusions with online gambling.

What is the agreement in gambling? As far as I can tell it's simply that a particular game will be played in a particular way. That particular way should include a definition of your payback; so long as it does you can determine when someone is defrauding you, if you were so inclined. And if the rules don't include a definition of expected payback I don't see how you can possibly be defrauded in terms of insufficient payout.

The agreement is to set at a game with specific rules and proceedures while wagering money on the outcome. If I rigged the outcome, then I have violated those rules. BTW, no matter what anyone tells you, it isn't ok to cheat outside a life and death situation.

If i play you at poker and my cards consistantly beat your cards everything is fine and dandy. If I rigged the deck to make my cards beat your cards it is not. In the real world, this can been seen and caught/delt with rather easily. in the virtual world, it is a few obscure pieces of code in the background that you will never have the opertunity to watch when comming into play.

First, as I said before, if I have a 40% chance of winning, I have a 40% chance of winning, or the game isn't fair. Games where other players affect the outcome are not ruled by such simple probabilities.

But that being said, your statistical analysis of blackjack is flawed. Other player do affect the cards that are available, but given a sufficiently large sample their effect is negligible, because other players cannot make you lose to the dealer, nor are you competing against them. They do affect the available cards in shoe, but their effect is just as likely to be beneficial as detrimental, since they may just as easily consume card beneficial for the dealer as for the player. Therefore any sample large enough to average their effect should produce the same results as playing by yourself.

Their presence is more then negligable. If for say one person has a 40% chance of winning by themself at blackjack you would assume that when playing 100 games perfectly, you would have won 40 of them. But when another person sits in, He has less of a chance to getting the same cards you could have got. He may still be looking at a 40% chance on his own but wth another person it(the chances) is droped by about a third. But the most interesting thing is that in more than one statistic, the more things effecting the variable (think players) the more games needed to make the number pan out. So, If your guessing off of 1000 games that you would have won 400 of them, I don't see it happening because your chances of getting the same cards have decreased. 40/100 based on 2/52 doen't equal the same odds as ?/100 based on 3 or 4 or 5/52. But I don't want to get into caculating odds at blackjack, I just know that 52 cards divided among more people means less chances of getting the cards you wanted or needed so the odds cannot be the same.

I wouldn't argue with that at all. I just don't think A) we should expect to entirely stop it from happening B) that such expections, should they

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

Their presence is more then negligable. If for say one person has a 40% chance of winning by themself at blackjack you would assume that when playing 100 games perfectly, you would have won 40 of them. But when another person sits in, He has less of a chance to getting the same cards you could have got. He may still be looking at a 40% chance on his own but wth another person it(the chances) is droped by about a third. But the most interesting thing is that in more than one statistic, the more things effecting the variable (think players) the more games needed to make the number pan out. So, If your guessing off of 1000 games that you would have won 400 of them, I don't see it happening because your chances of getting the same cards have decreased. 40/100 based on 2/52 doen't equal the same odds as ?/100 based on 3 or 4 or 5/52. But I don't want to get into caculating odds at blackjack, I just know that 52 cards divided among more people means less chances of getting the cards you wanted or needed so the odds cannot be the same.

Your analysis assumes that removing a card from play necessarily reduces your chances of winning (and more generally, that specific hands are necessarily more valuable than other specific hands). While this may be true in some games, blackjack is not one of them. Both the dealer and the player have the same goal, so removing "good" cards from play penalizes players and dealers in direct proportion to their original chance of winning -- that is, very nearly equally. Therefore, unless the second player is receiving a non-random set of cards both the player and the house should be equally affected by additional players, and your overall odds of winning should remain largely unaffected.

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

Your analysis assumes that removing a card from play necessarily reduces your chances of winning

No, Not reduces, just changes the chances of winning. You see there are 52 cards in the deck. Assuming we are using a single deck, You need a 10 or equivalent and an ace to instantly win at blackjack. So on your first card you have a 2 out of 20 for every 52 chance of getting a card needed for a combination of 21. On you second card, you have 1 out of 18 for every 50 chance of getting one of the cards. But out of those two chances you have a 1 in 5 chance of an ace being dealt the first time and 1 in 4 chance the second. Add two other players to the game and you chances change drastically. Asuming your the first of four players total, counting a dealer (who is always a player making 4 total players) to be dealt to, you now have a 1 in 20 for every 52 cards chance on the first card and 1 in 16 for every 48 cards the second.

So in the original, with just you and the dealer, there is somewhere close to a 38% chance of getting one of the cards you need and on the second you have around a 36% chance. But with four players it goes from 38% on the first to roughly 33% for the second. 3% might not be too much of a difference but that can even grow when you don't get what you need in the first two card. Lets say you got an king and an 8. The dealer has a two queens the guy to the left has a 10 and 3 and to his left an ace and a 4. Now you need a 3 to add to you 18 to beet the dealer. You now have a 1 in 3 chance out of 44 or roughly 6.8% chance of getting your card or roughly a 97% chance of getting a card other then the one you need. If the other players were not there, you would have closer to a 8% chance of getting you card.

So, for sake of argument, the chances of getting an equivalent of 10 or 11 on the first card in seat position 1 with just you and the dealer is 61% for the first card and 24% for the second. This is assuming none of the other players get one of these cards. But if you are in the third seat with two other players and the dealer, you have a 2% better chance of getting one of those cards with a 64% one the first card dealt and 26% on the second. This also changes with the amount of cards showing that you need and get confusing very fast. But the point is that you have a better chance in some circumstances depending on were you sit and how many people are in the game.

2% doesn't seem like a lot but in a game with a 40% chance of winning at, an extra 2% difference could equal 4% (2% above and 2% below) So if i just played the margin of error and scammed 4% from everyone who played and I averaged 10,000 player who spent can with $100 each a night, I would have access to $1,000,000 wich would give me around $40,000 profit that I stole from everyone who played. If i do this 3 nights a week I would have stolen $6,240,000 in the course of a year. Is it ok for me to steal 6 million plus dollars?

Re:buyer beware

[profplump]

I agree that the odds of getting any particular hand change. What I don't understand is why you think they change in the favor of the dealer. Sure, you've got a smaller chance of getting a natural blackjack, but so does the dealer. You onlt have to beat the dealer, not obtain a perfect hand.

Re:buyer beware

[sumdumass]

I agree that the odds of getting any particular hand change. What I don't understand is why you think they change in the favor of the dealer. Sure, you've got a smaller chance of getting a natural blackjack, but so does the dealer. You onlt have to beat the dealer, not obtain a perfect hand.Well, the dealer is always the last person being dealt to. And the further away from the first person, assuming no winning hand cards are produced, the chances get better for people being dealt later. Err, seat 3 has a better chance at getting the cards needed to win then seat one. The dealer will alway be the last so in that case the dealer always keeps the better chances unless the cards show up in the other players hands.

But i wasn't really trying to show the dealer had an advantage rather just show that the amount of people and the position your sitting in at the table increase or decrease your relative odds at winning. For the standard 40% chance of winning wouldn't be 40% every time in every seat with differing amounts of players. I thought the differences were a little farther apart though. But to put it in perspective, I compiled the difference in a likely scenario over a years time that wouldn't be likely to ever be found out (because it remains within the margin of error). But cheating is cheating

My little scenario was just a controlled example to show differences. I have no idea how to figure all the differences when considering you don't know what the dealer has until after everyone is dealt or if the third person got an ace first or if the dealer needs to hit on a soft 17 or not. That is way too hard for me. But I'm going to assume that with all those variables, there are still differences in the chances of winning or losing when playing in different seats with different amounts of people. So the 40% chance of winning might not be 40% with 5 people and you sitting in the fith spot were it might be accurate if you are the second person sitting in seat 2 with only one other person playing. The 40% could become 60% if you can get the dealer to bust often.

So without taking other players and your seating position into consideration, you cannot come up with a 40% chance of winning all the time or you may need to play millions of times before it actually pans out. Losing the first 60 games and winning the last 40 game is still 40% But if these variations do nothing else, they will make it necessary to play more games before the 40% will be evident. It would almost be impossible to tell if your getting cheated by the house. Especially if it is done on the margins of error and thru software. Different things are in place to help make it obvious in real world casinos but as we somewhat agreed, those don't transfer easily to online gambling.

Internet gambling

[cdrguru]

The problems with this are regulation, taxation, and operation. You would not believe the hurdles that have to be gone through to set up a casino in the US. Any jurisdiction. Tribal casinos have the same issues as do those on "riverboats" and in Nevada.

An online casino has none of these. You can operate out of a basement somewhere. No rules, no oversight, no regulation. And, perhaps most importantly, no taxation. The rules the casinos have to follow in Las Vegas ensures two things: fair play and reporting every dime of "take" by the casino as well as every dime won by players. An offshore online casino is not going to be subject to these requirements.

Of course the "fair play" regulation is going to be waved about. As well it should. How the heck do you know anything about an online casino, anyway? Through their advertising? Player testamonials? Somehow I don't think that comes anywhere near reality.

And I doubt very much if you open the door to Internet gaming in general if you are going to be able to regulate it in any manner whatsoever. How would any government prevent some Ponzi-style operation from having a casino where everyone wins for the first couple of weeks? How long would you really need to keep it going? A month? Two? I guess it would depend on how greedy you were. I can't imagine any way of regulating such operations. And believe me, I would want to set up my very own online casino tomorrow if I could. Can't imagine a better way to bring in a lot of cash fast. Even a quasi-legitimate operation that returns 99.99% of all money bet would have incredible payoff to the operator.

Re:Internet gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

The regular gamblers actually have a pretty good idea where it is "safe" to gamble through word of mouth and reputable gambling publications. They tend to select online casinos in countries where such business ARE legal and ARE regulated, such as England.

Re:Internet gambling

[IslandAce]

This might have been true in the "dark ages" of Internet gaming/gambling - today, however, most of the "big" names in the business are:
  - Publicly traded (many on the London Stock Exchange)
  - Using 3rd party consulting companies to veryfiy their fairness (such as Price Waterhouse Coopers)
  - Members of eCOGRA (the self-governing body of online gaming operators)

Besides this, all of them ARE licensed AND regulated. Many are licensed in Khanawakee (sp?), Malta, Gibraltar or the Isle of Man. Not exactly third-world countries with rampant corruption.
It's a very US thing to do - believing that noone but the US could possibly be trusted to license and regulate financial transactions (maybe with the exception of Switzerland...), and that since the companies aren't based in the US they must be doing something illegal. All the while, we outside of the US can't believe our eyes when pretty much every election in the US ends with court-decided results and blatant miscounts. It's pretty hillarious actually, but in a very sad and a bit scary way.

To actually comment a bit on your comment - the Internet is a wonderful thing, where self-regulation can actually work (see Slashdot...). Governments don't need to prevent "Ponzi-style operations". Should they become a problem, the community will find a way to regulate itself or go under - pretty much Free Economics 101.
And any casino that returns 99.99% of the money bet to the players would be totally incredible...

Oh well.

Re:Internet gambling

[ArsenneLupin]

It's a very US thing to do - believing that noone but the US could possibly be trusted to license and regulate financial transactions (maybe with the exception of Switzerland...),

No, that attitude is pretty much universal. Whenever government, any government, wants to hamper transactions between consenting adults that it doesn't approve of, it tries to invoke the issue of trust. If one business partner can be convinced that the other is not trustworthy, the "problem" is solved, and less money needs to be spent on enforcement.

Back in the day of "inconvertible" money in the former communist States, tourists got pamphlets that they should never ever dare exchange money "on the street", because they will most certainly be screwed over. That was somehow a much more convincing argument than saying "it's illegal and you'll go to jail when caught".

Re:Internet gambling

[philg]

An online casino has none of these. You can operate out of a basement somewhere. No rules, no oversight, no regulation.

You suffer from the misperception that entities opereating outside United States law operate outside all law. This is not the case. Many online casinos are based in England, which regulates them heavily to ensure fair play. The same is true of Antiguan casinos. If the government does not regulate (and therefore certify) the fairness of the casino, there will be significantly diminished revenue as many, many people go elsewhere. This is especially true of internet casinos, which provide absolutely nothing other than gambling; at least in a hypothetical crooked B&M casino, you could eat the buffet or watch the shows or something.

The reason these governments do all this, of course, is that they get to tax the casinos. So your argument that the government doesn't get tax revenue also suffers from the "U.S. government == all government" fallacy.

Even a quasi-legitimate operation that returns 99.99% of all money bet would have incredible payoff to the operator.

You just described how slot machines and almost all table games work in completely legal (i.e., not "quasi-legal") casinos, except that they get to keep more than .1%. Most of these games are complete chance -- which, ironically, provides the most reliable profit since player skill cannot skew the probabilities.

The exception to this is games where people compete with each other to capture part or all of a pot which they build by wagering; in that case, the casino takes a commision (e.g., a "rake" or a "vig") and lets the players fight it out among themselves. The casino doesn't care if these games can be influenced by skill; they make no money on who wins the game. The textbook examples of this is poker and prop (e.g., sports) betting.

Assuming you are a voter somewhere, I urge you to educate yourselves on how gambling works before making any votes that might influence or be influenced by it.

whats disappointing is

[Red Australian]

The fact that Antigua stood up to the americans. Where is the rest of the world? Is everyone else really that scared of the US? America stinks of things like this. They are just upset that so much money is going overseas. Imagine if every country did that? Made it illegal to buy american products. Imagine that, if the whole world united and said we would not buy american products, gun crime and drugs would drop massively wouldn't they?

IP

[falconwolf]

The interesting thing here is that Antigua is so small it can't recover its damages from the US in the usual fashion, so it is asking for the novel relief of being granted the right to copy US-produced IP without paying the usual royalties. Since global enforcement of copyright relies on similar mutual agreement to WTO (might even come under WTO?), this might even work.

IP comes under the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization amoung other treaties and organizations such as the Berne Convention.

Falcon

Re:IP

[Anonymous Coward]

IP comes under the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization amoung other treaties and organizations such as the Berne Convention.

You'd think so but it's probably more effective to make exceptions for US owned IP in their implementations of TRIPs,.which definetly is a treaty within the WTO framework.

Indian gaming

[falconwolf]

The fact that the USA allows casinos is irrelevent. Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded.

There's not really much the US can do to prevent Indian gaming as long as the casinoes are on reservation. None of the treaties signed between Indian tribes and the US government, of which the US has broken a bunch already, bars tribes from having casinoes.

Falcon

Re:Indian gaming

[Daniel_Staal]

It can do exactly as much about them as it can about gaming in Antigua: prohibit them from offering gambling online to US citizens. Since it doesn't, Antigua can claim that the laws prohibiting them from offering such sites are only to protect the sites that are allowed to operate.

Old-fashion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Overall an OK article,but.

"This whole episode may turn out to be a case study of what can go wrong when Congress succumbs to an idea that probably should never have made it out of the 19th century--prohibition--in far more complex contemporary circumstances."

Just because prohibition failed doesn't mean the idea itself is a failure. I should also point out that other nations do it as well, and I don't see the Slate doing a story about that.

drug patents

[falconwolf]

Of course, for much the same reasons, a lot of countries wish to violate US patents on drugs.

Actually there is a clause in the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, agreements that allow countries such as South Africa to make or import generic drugs in cases where a lot of doses of drugs are needed to treat a bunch of people who otherwise couldn't afford the drug.

Falcon

zebra mussels

[falconwolf]

Have you seen what zebra mussels are doing to the Great Lakes? They cause hugh problems in the lakes. But it's not like they were intentionally imported, instead they came with the ballast water. It's not really much different than many other invasive species such as kudzo along the Mississippi in the south.

Falcon

Medical marijuana

[DerangedAlchemist]

Strange logic given that mophine, heroine, cocain and meth-amphetamine can be legally prescribed. Or more, no logic all show.

Big Whoop

[the eric conspiracy]

Boy, there is a HUGE jump from the current online gambling broohaha to the idea that Antigua would be able to abrogate it's IP treaty. The UN hasn't even ruled on the current state of affairs, and then of course there is no guaranty that the WTO would cotton up to the idea of letting Antigua break it's IP treaty in retaliation.

It's a premise that is beyond any sort of reasonable extrapolation.

And then even should this come to pass, who cares? It would only affect the residents of Antigua - you wouldn't be able to legally import anything into the US that violates US copyright laws.

The whole article is ludicrous.

Simple Solution

[BlueCoder]

Just make it illegal where it's illegal in the United States. Where gambling is legal you can gamble online per the regulations of the community. There would probably be a requirement to show that your in a legalized zone and the type of gambling your doing is legal which would mean going to a physical location. It would probably also require local taxes to be paid; which is a partial reason why communities legalize gambling.

You can then point and show that they have equal access to the gambling market the same as any local casino or racetrack. Expect 7/11 to start offering Antiqua lotto tickets.

I am curious if any thought was put into the WTO of a distinction of products vs. services.

Piracy?

[stephenpeters]

If WTO rules allow Antigua to retaliate against the US by ignoring IP treaties is it really piracy at all? The US seems to have got itself in the position of allowing Antigua to lawfully ignore current IP rules.

Re:Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

If WTO rules allow Antigua to retaliate against the US by ignoring IP treaties is it really piracy at all?

Considering how bad the US is at honouring treaty obligations it's a wonder the rest of the world still bothers making treaties with them in the first place.

Where's the gambling taking place on the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes place where the transaction ends. Which is out of the US in most places.

Much the same way as you can drive to Vegas and gamble, and then come back with the winnings to your state that bans gambling.

This one gets me excited.

[SupremoMan]

I would be interested to see how this pans out. Of course the only way to go iss to ignore US IP laws, because a challenge to reverse a US law, especially one championed by this President, wouldn't get you anywhere. But now they got US by the balls.

Antigua to welcome a few GI Joe very soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Antigua would be ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws.

Antigua is fully aware of what happened to Grenada, a small caribbean island nation. Just like Reagan made a joke about that US invasion, which killed many locals, Dubya will make a joke about the invasion of Antigua, which would be a mere finger excercise for the Marines.

As the ancient romans put it: The chief god Jupiter Maximus is allowed to do things which the little ox is not allowed to.

land of the free

[falconwolf]

Land of the free doesn't mean land of the I can scam you. Which is what could happen

And you can get seriously injured or killed by having a vehicle hit you, I personally know this because I was hit while riding my bike and while in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! By your reasoning vehicles should be made illegal. And what about bathtubs, do you know how many people die in them? Many do, should we make them illegal too? What many don't understand is that along with freedom liberty also demands responsibility. If I am not harming anyone else then I should be able to do whatever I want. If I do harm someone else either file charges against me or file a lawsuit.

Gambling is most likely illegal in the first place because of all the corruption around it.

Gambling itself isn't illegal, life itself is a gamble so if gambling were illegal then life would be too. Want to make life illegal? If I had been afraid of risks then I wouldn't of been riding my bike after class in college, heck I wouldn't even of went to college. Gambling itself isn't illegal though some forms are illegal, but talking about corruption, it's present in politics as well as all other human activities. The solution isn't to make something illegal because of corruption, instead you clean up the corruption.

It is one thing for a guy to lose his house, car and first born child in a poker game.

It's the responsibility of the individual to not gamble his or life away. If you must gamble only gamble what you can afford to lose. If a person looses their home because they gambled it away then it's their responsibility.

It is another thing when it regularly happens because someone was using marked cards.

Then clean it up not make it illegal. See what I say about vehicles above.

Falcon

Re:land of the free

[sumdumass]

And you can get seriously injured or killed by having a vehicle hit you, I personally know this because I was hit while riding my bike and while in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! By your reasoning vehicles should be made illegal. And what about bathtubs, do you know how many people die in them? Many do, should we make them illegal too? What many don't understand is that along with freedom liberty also demands responsibility. If I am not harming anyone else then I should be able to do whatever I want. If I do harm someone else either file charges against me or file a lawsuit.

First cars are outlawed to a certain extent. You need to be licensed to drive them, have to have certain finacial responsibility, have to keep them in somewhat of a working order, cannot make one without certain saety features and you need to be of a certain age. You also can lose the legal priviledge to drive if you violate many of the laws surrounding cars. Can you say the same for driving on the internet>?

Second, Your looking at it assbackwards. Now you got hit while ridding a bike, I'm asuming it wasn't your fault but for the sake of this argument we will continue to think of it as being true. Now, should we remove the age restroctions from driving or th skills tests require to get a license in most places? Should we remove the license requirment so anyone can drive anything at any time? How about selling cars or bikes without brakes and you need to drag your feet to stop. but that isn't the point of his little rant.

The point is, your getting upset when you think it is about stopping you from doing something. The idea of regulating gambling isn't to stop you fom gambling, it is to stop someone else from cheating you while your gambling. The difference is enormous here. You could have all the responsability in the world but wouldn't want a ten year old drinking a sixpack and driving a car with bad brakes thru your neighborhood. And we can do something to stop it from happening. Also there are laws not alowing it to happen and If it does, then there are laws to go after the people who let it happen. But there aren't very many ways to go after a person who sells a car and beer to a ten year old from another country over the internet who delivers the car with bad breaks and a full tank of gas. (asuming it could actualy reach the kid before getting pulled by customs).

It wouldn't matter who you sued if the court in the country scamming you doesn't recognize those laws. your fucked and probably in a hospital in a coma with no recourse.

Gambling itself isn't illegal, life itself is a gamble so if gambling were illegal then life would be too. Want to make life illegal? If I had been afraid of risks then I wouldn't of been riding my bike after class in college, heck I wouldn't even of went to college. Gambling itself isn't illegal though some forms are illegal, but talking about corruption, it's present in politics as well as all other human activities. The solution isn't to make something illegal because of corruption, instead you clean up the corruption.

You right the solution isn't to ban it or make it illegal. It is to regulate it and watch closly to see that no one is taking unfair advantage of the situation. When that cannot be done, then it needs to be banned untill it can be.

It's the responsibility of the individual to not gamble his or life away. If you must gamble only gamble what you can afford to lose. If a person looses their home because they gambled it away then it's their responsibility.

Outside the dumping this person as a burden to society, I don't see a poblem with it. You could lose everything for all i care. It is when you lose it in a crooked game were you had no chance of winning in the first place that I (and most likley the government who has banned online gambling) have the problem. Of course they know that If comput

Re:land of the free

[falconwolf]

Now you got hit while ridding a bike, I'm asuming it wasn't your fault

No it wasn't my fault, the driver of the van was at fault. Witnesses to the accident said the driver was weaving all over the road and it was only a matter of when he hit someone not if. He was a diabetic and they say he had a seizer while driving. I had doubts about diabetic seizers so I asked a friend who's an insolin dependent diabetic and she said she didn't know of diabetic seizers, instead she said they can passout. Also he had a record of causing accidents and being admitted to the hosiptal because of his diabetes. It was fond out later that he moved from one state to another because the state he moved from issued an arrest warrant for him.

Should we remove the license requirment so anyone can drive anything at any time?

Just as with driving gamblng online might be regulated instead of being made illegal.

The point is, your getting upset when you think it is about stopping you from doing something. The idea of regulating gambling isn't to stop you fom gambling, it is to stop someone else from cheating you while your gambling.

If it's not about preventing me from gambling online, I don't bet or wager irl or online even though there are casinoes within an hours drive from where I live, then why make online gambling illegal period? If being scammed is a concern then regulate online gambling, don't make it illegal.

You could have all the responsability in the world but wouldn't want a ten year old drinking a sixpack and driving a car with bad brakes thru your neighborhood.

I wouldn't want anyone even an adult driving through not just my neighborhood but any neighborhood while under the influence. As a matter of fact I believe DUI or DWI laws need to be tighened and vigorously enforced. I almost think the US should adopt the laws that were in force when I was in Germany. Though beer has a higher alcohol content there the blood alcohol level that's considered drunk is lower than in the US. And when a person is, er was, arrested for DUI they spent tyme in jail, 6 months if I recall right. They also loose their drivers license for 6 years then to get a new one they had to pay a stiff fine. Here in the US the most I've seen drunk drivers get is a slap on the wrist.

You right the solution isn't to ban it or make it illegal. It is to regulate it and watch closly to see that no one is taking unfair advantage of the situation. When that cannot be done, then it needs to be banned untill it can be.

This is just what I said above, regulate online gambling don't make it illegal.

Falcon